United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lafayette Division
PATRICK J. HANNA MAG. JUDGE
G. JAMES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is a "Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) [Doc. No. 6] filed by Defendant Lutfe
Hassan. On December 4, 2017, Magistrate Judge Patrick J.
Hanna issued a Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 10] in
which he recommends denying Defendant's motion. Defendant
objected to the Report and Recommendation on December 18,
2017. [Doc. No. 13].
that the Magistrate Judge's ultimate recommendation is
correct under the applicable law and the record, the Court
ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. The Court issues this
Ruling to address Defendant's objection that the
Magistrate Judge erred in declining to consider documents
attached to his motion.
reviewing Defendant's motion to dismiss, the Magistrate
declined to consider any documents other than Plaintiffs
When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, such as the one
before the court at this time, a court has complete
discretion to consider documents other than the
complaintif those documents are attached to the
motion, referenced in the complaint, and central to the
plaintiffs claims. If a court considers materials outside of
the pleadings, however, the motion must be treated as a
motion for summary judgment, and the nonmovant must be afforded
the procedural safeguards of Fed.R.Civ.P. 56.
[Doc. No. 10, pp. 7-8 (footnotes in original)].
Fifth Circuit opined in Isquith, 847 F.2d at 196,
courts do have discretion to consider documents other than
the complaint: "when non-pleading materials are
filed with a motion to dismiss ... a district court has
complete discretion under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure to either accept the exhibits submitted or
not...." However, if the documents in question are
attached to a motion to dismiss, referenced in the complaint,
and central to the plaintiffs claims, they are considered
pleading materials. In re Katrina Canal Breaches
Litig., 495 F.3d at 205. Courts may consider documents
meeting these criteria without converting the motion to
dismiss into one for summary judgment. See Causey v.
Sewell Cadillac-Chevrolet, Inc., 394 F.3d 285, 288 (5th
Plaintiffs Complaint tenuously references the documents that
Defendant attaches to his motion, and the documents are
central to Plaintiffs claims. [Compare Doc. Nos. 1,
6]. Therefore, the Court has considered the documents.
Nevertheless, the Court finds no basis to depart from the
Magistrate Judge's ultimate recommendation. The documents
do not squarely conflict with Plaintiffs claims or otherwise
render Plaintiffs claims implausible. See Simmons v.
Peavy-Welsh Lumber Co., 113 F.2d 812, 813 (5th Cir.
1940) ("Where there is a conflict between allegations in
a pleading and exhibits thereto, it is well settled that the
exhibits control."); Sheppard v. Tex. Dep 't of
Tramp., 158 F.R.D. 592, 597 (E.D. Tex. 1994)
(contrasting earlier case that did not consider references to
documents that "did not even completely refute the
assertions made in the plaintiffs complaint" with case
where document "directly refutes the complaint's
assertions."). Accordingly, Defendant's "Motion
to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) [Doc. No. 6] is
LOUISIANA, this 8th day of January, 2018.
 Isquithfor and on behalf of Is
quith v. Middle South Utilities, Inc., 847 F.2d 186, 193
n.3 (5th Cir. 1988); Ware v. Associated Milk Producers,
Inc., 614 F.2d 413, 414-15 (5th Cir. 1980).
In re Katrina Canal Breaches
495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007);
Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter,224 F.3d 496,