2006). Subsequently, on February 4, 2004, Mr. Tarrant filed his complaint with this court requesting damages for actions taken by EPA during its removal activities undertaken pursuant to CERCLA. The government responded by moving for a more definite statement under RCFC 12(e), which motion the court granted. Order of Nov. 22, 2004. An amended complaint was filed on November 29, 2005, and the government thereafter filed a motion to dismiss. A hearing was held on May 11, 2006, and the matter is now ready for disposition. ANALYSIS A. Jurisdiction Jurisdiction must be established before a court addresses the merits of a case. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 88-89, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998); see Hambsch v. United States, 857 F.2d 763, 764 (Fed.Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). Mr. Tarrant, as the plaintiff, bears the
recognizing that a federal court is obliged to dismiss a case whenever it appears the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction recognizing federal courts duty to determine matter of its own jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it becomes apparent that jurisdiction may be lacking holding that a federal court is obliged to determine its own jurisdiction for each case holding court was obliged to apply its own law despite problems created by lack of uniformity in application of immigration laws holding that the law of the case doctrine is not a fixed rule that prevents a federal court from determining the question of its own subject matter jurisdiction in a given case