and Abstain” that Planet filed in the district court was not expressly styled as a motion under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Planet now argues that it should be construed it as a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, while CNS contends that it is more properly viewed as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. We have not squarely held whether abstention is properly raised under Rule 12(b)(6), Rule 12(b)(1), both, or neither. Compare, e.g., Porter v. Jones, 319 F.3d 483, 489 (9th Cir.2003) (reviewing the district court’s decision to abstain pursuant to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion and noting that, ”[i]n debating the propriety of abstention, the parties ... rely on the facts alleged in the complaint”), with Scotts Co. LLC v. Seeds, Inc., 688 F.3d 1154, 1159-60 (<HOLDING>), and Potrero Hills Landfill, Inc. v. Cnty. of
holding district court abused its discretion in admitting state court findings of fact holding that district court abused its discretion in denying rule 60b1 motion without conducting equitable analysis holding trial court abused its discretion by modifying custody without applying extraordinary burden test holding that district court had not abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint holding on appeal from a dismissal under rule 12b1 that the district court abused its discretion in applying colorado river abstention