way, the Plaintiffs may rely on materials outside of the pleadings, but the complaint shall be construed in a liberal and broad fashion. This standard is different from a summary judgment standard under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which requires determining whether there are contested issues of fact before ruling on questions of law related to the facts. See Osborn v. United States, 918 F.2d 724, 729 (8th Cir.1990); Crawford v. United States, 796 F.2d 924, 928 (7th Cir.1986) (issues of jurisdiction should be decided first); Williamson v. Tucker, 645 F.2d 404 (5th Cir.) cert. denied, 454 U.S. 897, 102 S.Ct. 396, 70 L,Ed.2d 212 (1981) (district court can decide issues of fact in ruling on a motion filed under 12(b)(1)); Mims v. Kemp, 516 F.2d 21, 23 (4th Cir.1975) (<HOLDING>); but see In re Swine Flu Immunization Products
holding that by considering matters outside of the pleadings the trial court converted a rule 12b6 motion to dismiss into a summary judgment motion holding that only motions filed under 12b6 can be converted to a summary judgment motion holding that motions to dismiss should have been converted into motions for summary judgment where the district court relied upon contract documents submitted by the defendant holding summary judgment may only be entered for one who has filed a motion asking that relief and only after notice and hearing on that motion holding that a rule 12b6 motion is only converted to a motion for summary judgment when a court accepts and considers matters outside of the pleadings