A Rule 12(b)(1) motion is either “facial” or “factual.” See Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). In a facial attack, the challenger asserts that the allegations contained in a complaint are insufficient, on their face, to invoke federal jurisdiction; in a factual attack, on the other hand, the challenger disputes the truth of the allegations that, by themselves, would otherwise invoke federal jurisdiction. See id. Here, the instant motion is “facial,” because Defendant argues that the allegations contained in Plaintiff’s complaint are insufficient to invoke federal jurisdiction. See, e.g., Docket No. 88 at 2:16-17. Where, as here, the defendant has brought a facial attack, the district court must assume that the factual allegations in the complaint are true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See United States v. One 1997 Mercedes E420, 175 F.3d 1129, 1130-31 & n.1 (9th Cir. 1999); see also Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide, Inc., 328 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2003). However, the court “[is] not required to accept as true conclusory allegations which are contradicted by documents referred to in the complaint.” Warren, 328 F.3d at 1139 (citing Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc., 143 F.3d 1293, 1295-96 (9th Cir. 1998)) (emphasis added). B. Summary Judgment Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Summary judgment is appropriate when “the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine
A Rule 12(b)(1) motion is either “facial” or “factual.” See Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). In a facial attack, the challenger asserts that the allegations contained in a complaint are insufficient, on their face, to invoke federal jurisdiction; in a factual attack, on the other hand, the challenger disputes the truth of the allegations that, by themselves, would otherwise invoke federal jurisdiction. See id. Here, the instant motion is “facial,” because Defendant argues that the allegations contained in Plaintiff’s complaint are insufficient to invoke federal jurisdiction. See, e.g., Docket No. 88 at 2:16-17. Where, as here, the defendant has brought a facial attack, the district court must assume that the factual allegations in the complaint are true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See United States v. One 1997 Mercedes E420, 175 F.3d 1129, 1130-31 & n.1 (9th Cir. 1999); see also Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide, Inc., 328 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2003). However, the court “[is] not required to accept as true conclusory allegations which are contradicted by documents referred to in the complaint.” Warren, 328 F.3d at 1139 (citing Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc., 143 F.3d 1293, 1295-96 (9th Cir. 1998)) (emphasis added). B. Summary Judgment Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Summary judgment is appropriate when “the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine
120501-May-5-Final-Corrections-to-Petition-Word-2007-97-2003-compatibility.docx