Subject matter jurisdiction, which is “an inflexible matter that must be considered before proceeding to evaluate the merits of a case,” Matthews, 72 Fed.Cl. at 278, may be challenged at any time by the parties, by the court sua sponte, or on appeal, Folden v. United States, 379 F.3d 1344, 1354 (Fed.Cir.2004). When considering an RCFC 12(b)(1) motion, the burden of establishing the court’s subject matter jurisdiction resides with the party seeking to invoke it. McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. of Ind., 298 U.S. 178, 189, 56 S.Ct. 780, 80 L.Ed. 1135 (1936). The court “consider[s] the facts alleged in the complaint to be true and correct.” Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746, 747 (Fed.Cir.1988); see also Henke v. United States, 60 F.3d 795, 797 (Fed.Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); cf. Betz v. United States, 40 Fed.Cl. 286,
holding court obligated to draw all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs favor recognizing the courts obligation to assume all factual allegations to be true and to draw all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs favor holding that courts are obligated to draw all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs favor holding that for purposes of a class certification motion the court must accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint and may draw reasonable inferences therefrom holding courts are obligated to draw all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs favor