if such public disclosure has occurred, he was the original source of such allegations. (ComplY 142.) Yale does not challenge the sufficiency of the pleadings in this regard. Rather, it contests on a factual basis the failure of the Relator’s jurisdictional claims to comply with the requirements set forth in 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4) of the FCA. Because Yale’s jurisdictional challenge is factual in nature, our consideration of this motion is not limited to the face of the complaint. Robinson v. Government of Malaysia, 269 F.3d 133, 141 (2d Cir.2001); 2 Moore’s at § 12.30[4]. Instead, the Court may consider and weigh evidence outside the pleadings to determine if it has jurisdiction. Filetech S.A. v. France Telecom S.A., 157 F.3d 922, 932 (2d Cir.1998); see also Robinson, 269 F.3d at 141 (<HOLDING>). Once the defendant challenges the factual
holding that trial court must make findings of fact on all material factual issues that involve ultimate issues in divorce and must make findings that characterize and value each asset or liability on which disputed evidence was presented 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 if the resolution of a factual issue is necessary for a ruling on a motionto dismiss the court must go beyond the pleadings and resolve any disputed issues of fact holding that this court may address an issue not ruled on by the trial court if it presents a question of law and all the facts necessary for its resolution have been presented holding that in a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction a court may resolve disputed factual issues by reference to evidence outside the pleadings including affidavits