context: Although Tristan seeks dismissal without specifying whether such dismissal should be with or without prejudice, the other Defendants expressly seek dismissal with prejudice. (Doc. No. 25, at 1; Doc. No. 44, at 10; Doc. No. 58, at 33.) But because this Court dismisses this action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, the dismissal must necessarily be without prejudice, although, of course, the current array of parties would preclude any federal district court from exercising diversity jurisdiction.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 384 F.3d 437, 438
citation_a.parenthetical: explaining that dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not with prejudice, but the "jurisdictional disposition is conclusive on the jurisdictional question" such that "the plaintiff cannot re-file in federal court"
citation_a.sentence: Frederiksen v. City of Lockport, 384 F.3d 437, 438 (7th Cir.2004) (explaining that dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not with prejudice, but the “jurisdictional disposition is conclusive on the jurisdictional question” such that “the plaintiff cannot re-file in federal court”); see Miller v. Norris, 247 F.3d 736, 739 (8th Cir.2001) (“Although the dismissal was without prejudice, ‘an issue actually decided in a non-merits dismissal is given preclusive effect in a subsequent action between the same parties.’ ” (emphasis in original)).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 247 F.3d 736, 739
citation_b.parenthetical: "Although the dismissal was without prejudice, 'an issue actually decided in a non-merits dismissal is given preclusive effect in a subsequent action between the same parties.' " (emphasis in original
citation_b.sentence: Frederiksen v. City of Lockport, 384 F.3d 437, 438 (7th Cir.2004) (explaining that dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not with prejudice, but the “jurisdictional disposition is conclusive on the jurisdictional question” such that “the plaintiff cannot re-file in federal court”); see Miller v. Norris, 247 F.3d 736, 739 (8th Cir.2001) (“Although the dismissal was without prejudice, ‘an issue actually decided in a non-merits dismissal is given preclusive effect in a subsequent action between the same parties.’ ” (emphasis in original)).