Does Rule 12(b)(1) allow a defendant to raise the defense that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over an entire action?

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) allows a defendant to raise the defense, by motion, that the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over an entire action, or over specific claims in the complaint. Because standing and mootness are both issues pertaining to a federal court's subject-matter jurisdiction under Article III, they are properly raised in a motion to dismiss under 12(b)(1), not Rule 12(b)(6). White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir. 2000).

"A Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional attack may be facial or factual." Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). A jurisdictional challenge is considered factual if it relies on extrinsic evidence, and does not rely solely on the pleadings. Id. For such a challenge, the court need not presume the truthfulness of the complaint's allegations, and if the existence of jurisdiction turns on disputed issues of fact, the court may "hear evidence regarding jurisdiction" and "resolve factual disputes where necessary." Id.; see also Robinson v. United States, 586 F.3d 683, 685 (9th Cir. 2009).