context: If the Court does not have jurisdiction, it does not have the power to decide defendant's motion.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 418 F.3d 187, 194
citation_a.parenthetical: "Because a holding that the district court lacked removal jurisdiclion would end our inquiry, we first address the district court's denial of [plaintiff's] motion to remand the case to state court for lack of jurisdiction."
citation_a.sentence: See Broder v. Cablevision Sys. Corp., 418 F.3d 187, 194 (2d Cir.2005) ("Because a holding that the district court lacked removal jurisdiclion would end our inquiry, we first address the district court’s denial of [plaintiff's] motion to remand the case to state court for lack of jurisdiction.”); see also Cotter v. Milly LLC, No. 09 Civ. 04639(PGG), 2010 WL 286614, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2010) ("Because the issue of proper removal involves this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, it must be decided prior to [defendant’s] motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 2010 WL 286614, at *2
citation_b.parenthetical: "Because the issue of proper removal involves this Court's subject matter jurisdiction, it must be decided prior to [defendant's] motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)."
citation_b.sentence: See Broder v. Cablevision Sys. Corp., 418 F.3d 187, 194 (2d Cir.2005) ("Because a holding that the district court lacked removal jurisdiclion would end our inquiry, we first address the district court’s denial of [plaintiff's] motion to remand the case to state court for lack of jurisdiction.”); see also Cotter v. Milly LLC, No. 09 Civ. 04639(PGG), 2010 WL 286614, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2010) ("Because the issue of proper removal involves this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, it must be decided prior to [defendant’s] motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).”).