context: Defendant states that it "does not object to [the] ruling or rationale" but rather asserts an "additional rationale for dismissal" of the case. Def.'s' Obj. at 1. Defendant then purports to argue why the "complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim ....," id. at 3, but it invokes sovereign immunity, see id. at 3-4, which is a jurisdictional basis for dismissal.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 463 U.S. 206, 212
citation_a.parenthetical: "It is axiomatic that the United States may not be sued without its consent and that the existence of consent is a prerequisite for jurisdiction."
citation_a.sentence: United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212, 103 S.Ct. 2961, 77 L.Ed.2d 580 (1983) (“It is axiomatic that the United States may not be sued without its consent and that the existence of consent is a prerequisite for jurisdiction.”); see Hornbeck Offshore Transp., LLC v. U.S., 569 F.3d 506, 512 (D.C.Cir.2009) (“The extent of the waiver of sovereign immunity under the FTCA is coextensive with the district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the case.”) (citation omitted).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 569 F.3d 506, 512
citation_b.parenthetical: "The extent of the waiver of sovereign immunity under the FTCA is coextensive with the district court's subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the case."
citation_b.sentence: United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212, 103 S.Ct. 2961, 77 L.Ed.2d 580 (1983) (“It is axiomatic that the United States may not be sued without its consent and that the existence of consent is a prerequisite for jurisdiction.”); see Hornbeck Offshore Transp., LLC v. U.S., 569 F.3d 506, 512 (D.C.Cir.2009) (“The extent of the waiver of sovereign immunity under the FTCA is coextensive with the district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the case.”) (citation omitted).