Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Ernest Brown v. Philadelphia Housing Authority, 350 F.3d 338 (2003)

Citation
Ernest Brown v. Philadelphia Housing Authority, 350 F.3d 338 (2003)
Parent Document
Ernest Brown v. Philadelphia Housing Authority, 350 F.3d 338 (2003)
Effective Date
2003-11-19

Other Sections in This Document (58)

Full Text

697 chars
38
It is of no moment, therefore, that the defense of lack of subject matter jurisdiction was raised by PHA for the first time in its reply brief on appeal. See note 3, supra. The fact that PHA did not raise its mootness claim earlier in the proceedings cannot and does not confer jurisdiction on this Court, nor in the absence of a live Article III controversy can it provide District Court jurisdiction in this case. Defenses relating to subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time. Sansom Committee by Cook v. Lynn, 735 F.2d 1535, 1538 (3d Cir.1984) (defense that district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enforce consent decree may be raised for the first time on appeal).