Rule 12(b)(1) motion was in fact an indirect attack on the merits of Miller’s case. See Gentek Bldg. Prods., Inc. v. Steel Peel Litiga nizing the “subj ect-matter jurisdiction/ingredient-of-claim-for-relief dichotomy” and noting that “[sjubject matter jurisdiction in federal-question cases is sometimes erroneously conflated with a plaintiffs need and ability to prove the defendant bound by a federal law asserted as the predicate for relief — a merits-related determination” (quotation omitted)); Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946) (“Jurisdiction ... is not defeated ... by the possibility that the averments might fail to state a cause of action on which petitioners could actually recover.”); Williams v. Fleming, 597 F.3d 820, 822-24 (7th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>); Doss v. Clearwater Title Co., 551 F.3d 634,
holding that a federal court improperly dismissed suit on abstention grounds where there was no concurrent jurisdiction over the federal claims holding that if the federal claims are dismissed before trial  the state claims should be dismissed as well holding that the case must be dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction where notice of appeal was untimely holding that in the context of the federal tort claims act claims dismissed on sovereign immunity grounds are not dismissed for lack of jurisdiction but for the existence of a defense holding that when all federal claims have been dismissed the court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims