F.3d 1196, 1199 (D.C.Cir.2004). Nevertheless, “the Court need not accept factual inferences drawn by plaintiffs if those inferences are not supported by facts alleged in the complaint, nor must the Court accept plaintiffs’ legal conclusions.” Speelman v. United States, 461 F.Supp.2d 71, 73 (D.D.C.2006). On a motion to dismiss pursuant to 12(b)(1), the court may, where necessary, “ ‘consider the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record, or the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court’s resolution of disputed facts.’” Coalition for Underground Expansion v. Mineta, 333 F.3d 193, 198 (D.C.Cir.2003) (quoting Herbert v. Nat’l Acad, of Scis., 974 F.2d 192, 197 (D.C.Cir.1992)); see also Settles v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 429 F.3d 1098, 1107 (D.C.Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). B. Sovereign Immunity Defendants argue that
holding that in ruling on a rule 12b1 motion the court may consider exhibits outside the pleadings to resolve factual disputes regarding jurisdiction holding that a court may consider materials outside the pleadings to determine its jurisdiction holding that on a rule 12b1 motion challenging subjectmatter jurisdiction the court has authority to consider matters outside the pleadings holding that a court may consider extrinsic evidence to determine whether a contract is ambiguous holding that a trial court entered judgment on the pleadings where the decision did not depend on any document outside the pleadings