has been met and that FGS’s complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted. DISCUSSION A. Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction The main contention upon which the government bases its motion to dismiss is that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The government motion is made pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). FGS has invoked three separate bases upon which this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction is founded: the Federal Tort Claims Act, 25 U.S.C. § 450m-1, and-Pub.L. No. 101-512, § '314. A motion to dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction's an argument that the Court lacks the power to hear the class of cases to which the plaintiffs claim belongs. See Continental Cablevision, Inc. v. United States Postal Serv., 945 F.2d 1434, 1437-38 (8th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, if the claims of FGS fall within a
holding that a federal court may adjudicate claims for which there is no independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction if the nonjurisdictional claims are related to other claims for which the does have jurisdiction holding that subject matter jurisdiction relates to whether a plaintiffs claim falls within a class of claims which a court is empowered to hear holding that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the petitioners collateral attack under  1331 holding if a plaintiffs claim is concerned with rights created within the contractual relationship it falls within the tucker act holding that the district court was not divested of subject matter jurisdiction upon the dismissal of the plaintiffs federal claims