Ins. Co. v. United States, 922 F.2d 320, 325 (6th Cir.1990)) (internal citations omitted). “Second, a party may go beyond allegations contained in the complaint and challenge the facts upon which subject matter jurisdiction depends. When reviewing a factual attack on subject matter jurisdiction, a district court may not presume the truthfulness of the complaint’s factual allegations. A court has wide discretion to allow affidavits, other, documents, and [to conduct] a limited evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed jurisdictional facts under Rule 12(b)(1).” Id. at 1003 (internal citations omitted); Los Alamos Study Group v. United States Dep’t of Energy, 692 F.3d 1057, 1063-64 (10th Cir.2012). See also Sizova v. Nat’l Inst. of Standards & Tech., 282 F.3d 1320, 1324-25 (10th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). IV. Analysis Defendants seek dismissal of
holding that district court has discretion when deciding to convert a defendants motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment holding that a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment precluded default judgment holding that the courts denial of either a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment is not a final judgment and is not reviewable  holding that where a court considering a rule 12b6 motion relies on matters outside the pleading the motion must be treated as a rule 56 motion for summary judgment holding that a court must convert a motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment under fedrcivp 56 only when the jurisdictional question intertwines with the merits of the case