Opinion ID: 164842
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: eberline

Text: Mr. Eden argues that the district court erred in dismissing Eberline pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Specifically, he contends that the district court did not accept the allegations of his complaint that Eberline participated in the search of his property and that the district court improperly considered matters outside the complaint by taking judicial notice of matters of public record. Rinchem and Benchmark Environmental Corp. had entered into a teaming agreement under which Benchmark, as contractor, and Rinchem, as subcontractor, bid on a contract with NMED to help remediate hazardous waste environmental conditions. 4 Apparently, Benchmark and Rinchem obtained the contract. In its motion to dismiss, Eberline asserted that it was a separate corporation distinct from either Benchmark or Rinchem and had no connection to the search and seizure. To support the assertion, Eberline attached to its motion Corporate Information Inquiry reports from the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission indicating that Eberline, Rinchem and Benchmark are separate corporations. 4 Support for this is provided by a document attached to Rinchem’s alternative motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. Mr. Eden does not object to the information contained in this document. -7- Taking judicial notice of the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission’s records, the district court granted Eberline’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed Eberline from the action with prejudice, holding that Eberline was mistakenly named as a defendant. We review the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal de novo. Duran v. Carris , 238 F.3d 1268, 1270 (10th Cir. 2001). Even assuming the district court properly took judicial notice of the existence of the public record, nothing specifically proved Eberline was not involved in the search, as Mr. Eden asserted. The public record merely stated that Eberline was a separate corporation with no legal connection to Benchmark or Rinchem. We do not accept the facts set forth in the public record as true. See Oxford Asset Mgmt. , Ltd. v. Jaharis , 297 F.3d 1182, 1188 (11th Cir. 2002), cert. denied , 124 S. Ct. 205 (2003); Lee v. City of Los Angeles , 250 F.3d 668, 689-90 (9th Cir. 2001); Bryant v. Avado Brands, Inc. , 187 F.3d 1271, 1278 (11th Cir. 1999); S. Cross Overseas Agencies, Inc. v. Wah Kwong Shipping Group Ltd. , 181 F.3d 410, 426-27 & n.7 (3d Cir. 1999); Kramer v. Time Warner Inc. , 937 F.2d 767, 774 (2d Cir. 1991). 5 Therefore, we remand to the district court for 5 Although Eberline maintains it is a separate and distinct legal entity from Benchmark, an affidavit provided by Rinchem indicates Eberline was formerly known as Benchmark. R. doc. 5, ex. A. Mr. Eden indicates that he could present evidence from a state government record of Eberline’s “involvement.” Aplt. Br. at 11. -8- further proceedings on the complaint allegations. See Mihos v. Swift , 358 F.3d 91, 101 (1st Cir. 2004) (recognizing facts in complaint still control).