the authenticity of the document is not challenged.” Sarvis v. Polyvore, Inc., No. 12-CV-12233-LTS, 2015 WL 5934759, at *3 (D. Mass. Aug. 25, 2015) (citing Beddall v. State Street Bank and Trust Co., 137 F.3d 12, 17 (1st Cir. 1998)), recommended decision adopted, 2015 WL 6182226 (D. Mass. Sept. 14, 2015). Here, Plaintiff Harris's breach of contract claim is dependent on the employment contract, Plaintiffs referenced and cited to the contract in the amended complaint, and Plaintiffs have not challenged the authenticity of the contract.
standing to sue for infringement of an exclusive right under the Copyright Act is an issue of statutory standing. Sarvis v. Polyvore, Inc., Civil Action No. 12-12233-LTS, 2015 WL 5934759, at *13 (D. Mass. Aug. 24, 2015), report and recommendation adopted, 2015 WL 6182226 (D. Mass. Sept. 14, 2015) (citing Katz v. Pershing, LLC, 672 F.3d 64, 75 (1st Cir. 2012); Cox-Com, Inc. v. Chaffee, 536 F.3d 101, 107 n.7 (1st Cir. 2008); Minden Pictures, Inc. v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., No. C-12-4601 EMC, 2014 WL 1724478, at *4-5 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2014)). Challenges to statutory standing, as opposed to constitutional standing, are "evaluated under the umbrella of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)."
Thus, when a defendant denies allegations made in a complaint, those allegations present a genuine issue of material fact, and the court must draw inferences in the defendant's favor. See id.; Sarvis v. Polyvore, Inc., No. 12-cv-12233-LTS, 2015 WL 5934759, at *3 (D. Mass. Aug. 24, 2015), report and recommendation adopted by, 2015 WL 6182226, at *1 (D. Mass. Sept. 14, 2015).
Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Evidence, "a judge may take notice of an adjudicative fact only if it is not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned." Crimson Galeria Ltd. P'ship v. Healthy Pharms, Inc., 337 F. Supp. 3d 20, 30 (D. Mass. 2018) (Burroughs, J.) (citing Sarvis v. Polyvore, Inc., No. 12-cv-12233-LTS, 2015 WL 5934759, at *4 (D. Mass. Aug. 24, 2015)); see also Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). Matters of public record, see In re Colonial Mortg. Bankers Corp., 324 F.3d at 15-16 -- which include material on government websites, see Gent v. Cuna Mut. Ins. Soc'y, 611 F.3d 79, 84 n.5 (1st Cir. 2010) -- are generally subject to judicial notice.
'"Id. (quoting Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663, 668 (2014) (citing 17 U.S.C. § 106)). See Sarvis v. Polyvore, Inc., CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-12233-LTS, 2015 WL 5934759, at *10 (D. Mass. Aug. 24, 2015), rec. dec. adopted, 1:12-CV-12233, 2015 WL 6182226 (D. Mass. Sept. 14, 2015). "The legal owner of these exclusive rights may transfer ownership of any one or more of the rights through the use of an exclusive license."
Standing under the Copyright Act is properly classified as an issue of statutory standing, rather than constitutional standing. Sarvis v. Polyvore, Inc., No. CV 12-12233-LTS, 2015 WL 5934759, at *13 (D. Mass. Aug. 24, 2015). Statutory standing, as opposed to constitutional standing, is waivable.
"Under Fed. R. Evid. 201(b), a judge may take notice of an adjudicative fact only if it is ‘not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.’ " Sarvis v. Polyvore, Inc., No. 12-cv-12233-LTS, 2015 WL 5934759, at *4 (D. Mass. Aug. 24, 2015), report and recommendation adopted, 2015 WL 6182226 (D. Mass. Sept. 14, 2015) (quoting Lussier v. Runyon, 50 F.3d 1103, 1113 (1st Cir. 1995) ). Plaintiffs offer no support for finding that this allegation is "generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court."
In light of this factual dispute, Children's Hospital is not entitled to judgment on the pleadings. See, e.g., Elsevier Ltd. v. Chitika, Inc., 826 F.Supp.2d 398, 403 (D.Mass.2011) (denying motion for judgment on the pleadings even though the moving party "[might have] eventually [been] entitled to judgment" because factual questions remained at that juncture); Sarvis v. Polyvore, Inc., No. 12–cv–12233–MBB, 2015 WL 5934759, at *3, *9 (D.Mass. Aug. 24, 2015), report and recommendation adopted, No. 12–cv–12233–LTS, 2015 WL 6182226 (D.Mass. Sept. 14, 2015) (denying motion for judgment on the pleadings where defendant's answer gave rise to factual disputes). Accordingly, the motion is denied.