United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division
OPINION AND ORDER
TIMOTHY L. BROOKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
before the Court are Defendant University of Arkansas's
("the University") Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 10),
Plaintiff Ronald Satish Emrit's Motion in Limine (Doc.
13), and Mr. Emrit's Notice of Appeal (Doc. 19). For the
reasons given below, the University's Motion is
GRANTED, and Mr. Emrit's Motion and
Notice are MOOT.
Emrit filed his Complaint in this case on November 14, 2016.
See Doc. 1. His Complaint sets forth nine separate
counts against the University, for breach of contract,
negligence, conversion, fraud, intentional infliction of
emotional distress, products liability, breach of implied
warranty of merchantability, breach of implied warranty of
fitness, and tortious interference with business relations.
See Id. It is difficult to discern precisely what
facts he contends give rise to these claims, but it appears
Mr. Emrit is upset because the University did not invite him
to return to its business school after he failed out of, or
was otherwise dismissed from, its masters program. See
Id. at ¶¶ 13-28. Mr. Emrit seeks to recover
$45, 000, 000.00 in damages from the University.
December 19, 2016, the University filed its Motion to Dismiss
Mr. Emrit's Complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Doc. 10. Mr.
Emrit never filed any formal response to the University's
Motion, but on January 13, 2017, he filed a document styled
"Motion in Limine, " to which he attached a
business plan purporting to demonstrate his lost earnings
potential. See Doc. 13. Then, on February 6, 2017,
Mr. Emrit filed a document styled "Notice of Appeal,
" in which he asked for new deadlines to be set and
copies of old documents in this case to be sent to him
because he believed he had not been receiving court filings
through the mail. See Doc. 19.
12(b)(1) motions to dismiss for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction "may be resolved either on the face of the
pleadings or upon factual determinations made in
consideration of matters outside of the pleadings."
Bhd. of Maint. of Way Emps. Div. of Intern. Bhd. of
Teamsters v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 475 F.Supp.2d 819,
834-35 (N.D. Iowa 2007) (citing Titus v. Sullivan, 4
F.3d 590, 593 (8th Cir. 1993); Osborn v. United
States, 918 F.2d 724, 729 & n.6 (8th Cir. 1990)).
The Court will resolve the instant question of subject-matter
jurisdiction on the face of the pleadings, and therefore for
purposes of this issue accepts all factual allegations in Mr.
Emrit's Complaint as true, and draws all reasonable
inferences in Mr. Emrit's favor. Id.
Eleventh Amendment states that "[t]he Judicial Power of
the United States shall not be construed to extend to any
suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of
the United States by Citizens of another State, " and
the Eighth Circuit acknowledges that "[t]he University
of Arkansas has been recognized to have Eleventh Amendment
immunity." Okruhlik v. Univ. of Ark. exrel.
May, 255 F.3d 615, 622 (8th Cir. 2001). For a state to
waive Eleventh Amendment immunity and thereby subject itself
to federal court jurisdiction, it "must make a clear,
unequivocal statement that it wishes to do so."
Faibisch v. Univ. of Minn., 304 F.3d 797, 800 (8th
Cir. 2002). The state of Arkansas has not done so with
respect to contract claims; rather, it requires such claims
to be brought before the Arkansas Claims Commission. See
Ark. Tech Univ. v. Link, 341 Ark. 495, 502 (2000);
see also Dover Elevator Co. v. Ark. State Univ., 64
F.3d 442, 447 (8th Cir. 1995) ("ASU's trustees, in
their official capacity, are immune from Dover's state
law breach of contract action, whether damages or specific
performance is the remedy sought."). Likewise, the state
of Arkansas has declared that its agencies are immune from
tort liability "except to the extent that they may be
covered by liability insurance, " which has not been
alleged to exist in this case. See Ark. Code Ann.
§ 21-9-301. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction to
hear any of Mr. Emrit's nine claims, all of which assert
state-law causes of tort or contract; accordingly, all of his
claims must be dismissed without prejudice. See Cnty. of
Mille Lacs v. Benjamin, 361 F.3d 460, 464-65 (8th Cir.
2004) ("A district court is generally barred from
dismissing a case with prejudice if it concludes subject
matter jurisdiction is absent").
IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant University of
Arkansas's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 10) is
GRANTED, and Plaintiff Ronald Satish
Emrit's claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. This renders MOOT Mr.
Emrit's Motion in Limine (Doc. 13) and Notice of Appeal
IS SO ORDERED.
 The University also moved to dismiss
Mr. Emrit's Complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for
failure to state a claim. The Court's ruling below with
regard to subject-matter jurisdiction moots any need to reach
the University's 12(b)(6) arguments.
 Mr. Emrit writes that he "has not
yet received any Report and Recommendation (R&R) issued
by the magistrate judge or any 'Order to Show Cause'
by the presiding judge." (Doc. 19, ¶ 4). No such