Task: Text Completion
Input (English): for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir.2004). Where the attack is facial, the court determines whether the complaint’s allegations are sufficient on their face to invoke federal jurisdiction, accepting all material allegations as true and construing them in favor of the party asserting jurisdiction. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975). Where the attack is factual, “the .court need not presume the truthfulness of the plaintiffs allegations.” Safe Air, 373 F.3d at 1039. In resolving a factual dispute regarding subject matter jurisdiction, a court may review extrinsic evidence beyond the complaint without converting a motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment. See id.; McCarthy v. United States, 850 F.2d 558, 560 (9th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). Once a party has moved to dismiss for lack of 
 Holding statements: (A) 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 (B) recognizing that generally disputes between purchasers of a debtors assets and third parties are not within the bankruptcy courts jurisdiction but recognizing that disputes concerning the sale order itself may be sufficient for subject matter jurisdiction (C) holding that in ruling on a rule 12b1 motion the court may consider exhibits outside the pleadings to resolve factual disputes regarding jurisdiction (D) holding that a court may review any evidence such as affidavits and testimony to resolve factual disputes concerning the existence of jurisdiction (E) holding that under the advisory guidelines a district court should resolve factual disputes at sentencing by applying the preponderance of the evidence standard
Output (English): (D)