Cited by

Co., (noting dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is dismissal on the merits and has “res judicata effect”); Montaño v. Browning, (“claims that are clearly brought outside the relevant limitations period are conclusively barred”).

Co., (explaining that courts cannot consider matters outside the pleadings in resolving motion to dismiss without giving parties “some indication .

Co., (finding a dismissal under 12(b)(6) is a dismissal on the merits).

Co., but we do not accept as true “allegations consisting of conclusions of law, inferences or deductions that are not necessarily implied by well-pleaded facts, unreasonable inferences or unsupported conclusions from such facts, or legal conclusions alleged as facts,” Jeter v. Mayo Clinic Ariz., 211 Ariz

Co., - 07 (App. 1987) (ruling that court may consider documentary and testimonial evidence to resolve jurisdictional challenges).

Co., -07 , -34 (App. 1987) (court may consider documentary and testimonial evidence to resolve jurisdictional challenges).

Co., (Proper to grant motion to dismiss when it is “certain that” the claimant “can prove no set of facts which will entitle them to relief upon their stated claims.”).

Co., (noting that a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal is a disposition on the merits and takes res judicata effect).

Co., (court gives plaintiffs benefit of all inferences when considering Rule 12(b)(6) motions).

[wa]s key to the issue of waiver.” And it suggests the trial court’s denial of its request for further discovery and an evidentiary hearing was contrary to the “expectation[s]” P.2d 29 (App. 1987).

Co., , (“[A] court may consider affidavits, depositions, and exhibits and conduct an evidentiary hearing if necessary to resolve a [Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure] 12(b)(2) challenge to its personal jurisdiction over a litigant.”); Oldfield, 558 F.3d at 1216 (finding there was no need for a