Opinion ID: 4513206
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Extrinsic Evidence Considered with Dismissal

Text: In its motion to dismiss, BANA attached several exhibits, all of which were public record. The exhibits include: the deed of trust and other related deeds that are recorded in Fort Bend County’s public records; and filings from the related lawsuit involving BANA before the same district court prior to KONE’s lawsuit against BANA. KONE contends that the documents in these exhibits were extrinsic and therefore the district court was required to convert the Rule 12 motion into a motion for summary judgment upon considering them. We disagree. “In determining whether a plaintiff’s claims survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the factual information to which the court addresses its inquiry is limited to the (1) the facts set forth in the complaint, (2) documents attached to the complaint, and (3) matters of which judicial notice may be taken under Federal Rule of Evidence 201.” See Walker v. Beaumont Indep. Sch. Dist., 938 F.3d 724, 735 (5th Cir. 2019). The court may also take judicial notice of matters of public record. Id. (citing Firefighters’ Retirement Sys., v. EisnerAmper, 898 F.3d 553, 558 n.2 (5th Cir. 2018)). Because the deeds and the filings from prior lawsuits that BANA attached to its dismissal motion were public record, the district court was 1 Citing Travelers Inc. Co. v. Joachim, 315 S.W.3d 860 (Tex. 2010), KONE argues that because it was not a party to BANA’s prior lawsuit against Qasem, Trans, and Baeissa, it is not bound by that decision. We reject this argument. In the earlier suit, BANA was awarded a first lien security interest on the Property and the right to enforce the deed of trust through non-judicial foreclosure. That KONE was not a party to the prior lawsuit is inconsequential— the district court’s judgment in favor of BANA is valid and enforceable regardless. Moreover, Travelers is inapposite here as the language KONE cites from that case addresses the required elements for application of the affirmative defense of res judicata—an issue not at play in these proceedings. See id. at 862. 5 Case: 19-20518 Document: 00515333413 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/05/2020 No. 19-20518 permitted to consider them in deciding the motion to dismiss. Accordingly, to the extent the district court considered the documents, that consideration did not convert the dismissal motion into one for summary judgment. See Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338, 1343 n.6 (5th Cir. 1994).