issue in controversy.” Fidelity, 48 F.3d at 133. Moreover, in vigorously opposing Hildebrand’s claims in this suit, Lewis is undoubtedly “aligned against” Hildebrand and defending “a course of conduct” which Hildebrand attacks. Smith, 354 U.S. at 95, 77 S.Ct. 1112. This, in turn, compels the conclusion that Iron Works is properly aligned as a defendant, as initially pled in the complaint. Accordingly, because Hildebrand and Iron Works are both Virginia citizens, Lewis’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be granted. This conclusion in no way impairs Hildebrand’s right to seek vindication of any of her asserted Virginia corporate rights in the appropriate state forum. An appropriate Order will issue. 1 . See DeBauche v. Trani, 191 F.3d 499, 505 (4th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47-48,
holding that where the defendant was in default the district court correctly accepted the fact allegations of the complaint as true recognizing that the allegations of the complaint must be accepted as true on a threshold motion to dismiss holding that when deciding a motion for judgment on the pleadings the court must construe the material allegations in the complaint in favor of the nonmoving party as true 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 that for the purposes of deciding a motion to dismiss courts take allegations as true unless contradicted by  documentary evidence  from the exhibits attached to the complaint