The Declaration of Terri Cooke, (Doc. 12-7), offered by Lombard, will be considered because it is evidence relevant to Lombard's motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) where matters outside the pleadings such as testimony and affidavits may be considered. Harmouche v. Consulate General of the State of Qatar, 313 F. Supp. 3d 815, 819 (S.D. Tex. June 12, 2018) (citing Paterson, 644 F.2d at 523). As such, the Court will not convert Defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion into a motion for summary judgment.
A facial attack consists of a Rule 12(b)(1) motion unaccompanied by supporting evidence that challenges the court's jurisdiction based solely on the pleadings.” Harmouche v. Consulate Gen. of the State of Qatar, 313 F.Supp.3d 815, 819 (S.D. Tex. 2018) (citing Paterson, 644 F.2d at 523). In considering a “facial attack,” the court “is required merely to look to the sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint because they are presumed to be true.
Harmouche v. Consulate General of the State of Qatar, 313 F.Supp.3d 815, 819 (S.D. Tex. 2018) (citing Paterson, 644 F.2d at 523). Facial attacks require the court to look only “to the sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint because they are presumed to be true.
” Harmouche v. Consulate Gen. of the State of Qatar, 313 F.Supp.3d 815, 819 (S.D. Tex. 2018) (citing Paterson v. Weinberger, 644 F.2d 521, 523 (5th Cir. 1981)). In considering a “facial attack,” a court “is required merely to look to the sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint because
“A facial attack consists of a Rule 12(b)(1) motion unaccompanied by supporting evidence that challenges the court's jurisdiction based solely on the pleadings.” Harmouche v. Consulate Gen. of the State of Qatar, 313 F.Supp.3d 815, 819 (S.D. Tex. 2018) (citing Paterson, 644 F.2d at 523). In considering a “facial attack,” a court “is required merely to look to the sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint because they are presumed to be true.
.” Harmouche v. Consulate General of the State of Qatar, 313 F.Supp.3d 815, 819 (S.D. Tex. 2018) (citing Paterson, 644 F.2d at 523). In considering a “facial attack,” the court “is required merely to look to the sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint because they are presumed to be true.
“A facial attack consists of a Rule 12(b)(1) motion unaccompanied by supporting evidence that challenges the court's jurisdiction based solely on the pleadings.” Harmouche v. Consulate General of the State of Qatar, 313 F.Supp.3d 815, 819 (S.D. T2018) (citing Paterson, 644 F.2d at 523).
” Harmouche v. Consulate General of the State of Qatar, 313 F.Supp.3d 815, 819 (S.D. Tex. June 12, 2018) (citing Paterson, 644 F.2d at 523)
"A facial attack consists of a Rule 12(b)(1) motion unaccompanied by supporting evidence that challenges the court's jurisdiction based solely on the pleadings." Harmouche v. Consulate General of the State of Qatar, 313 F. Supp. 3d 815, 819 (S.D. Tex. June 12, 2018) (citing Paterson, 644 F.2d at 523). In considering a "facial attack," the court "is required merely to look to the sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint because they are presumed to be true.
As an initial matter, Mr. Kimmage's single, conclusory statement denying Plaintiffs' allegations is hardly sufficient to lodge a factual attack on jurisdiction. See, e.g., Harmouche v. Consulate Gen. of Qatar, 313 F.Supp.3d 815, 821 (S.D. Tex. 2018) (dismissing as conclusory a statement within an affidavit in support to a defendant's factual attack on jurisdiction); Vasic v. Patent Health, L.L.C., 2013 WL 4716341, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2013) (denying a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because defendant's self-serving affidavit in support of its factual attack on jurisdiction also attacked the merits of plaintiff's case); see also Evans v. Tubbe, 657 F.2d 661, 663 (5th Cir. 1981) (“[T]he court is free to weigh the evidence and satisfy itself as to the existence of its power to hear the case.”). In any event, the Court declines to resolve the factual dispute at this stage in the proceeding.