required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), We subsequently granted Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. Thus, this appeal is now properly before this Court. 5 . Plaintiffs also assert that American Optical "failed to raise contractual negligence as an affirmative defense.” However, Plaintiffs misunderstand the basis for American Optical’s motion to dismiss and the district court’s analysis. Reflecting the affirmative defense of prescription American Optical properly raised in its answer, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(1)(A), American Optical appropriately moved to dismiss on the basis that Plaintiffs’ nullity claim was prescribed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). See Belanger v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 623 Fed.Appx. 684, 685 (5th Cir. 2015) (unpublished) (<HOLDING>); Tigert v. Am. Airlines, No. 10-30069, 2010 WL
recognizing that failing to convert a rule 12b6 motion to a motion for summary judgment will not constitute reversible error if the dismissal can be justified without considering the outside materials holding that dismissal based on the political question doctrine is properly entertained pursuant to rule 12b6 recognizing that a rule 12b6 motion is an appropriate vehicle on which to seek dismissal of a claim barred by a prescription statute holding that dismissal pursuant to rule 12b6 is appropriate if the plaintiff is unable to articulate enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face holding that a plaintiff cannot avoid dismissal under rcfc 12b6 by asserting a new claim