TUCKER MELANCON, District Judge
Before the Court are The Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government's (the "City-Parish") Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) [Rec. Doc. 17] and Motion for Oral Argument [Rec. Doc. 18], and Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc.'s ("Redflex") Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss [Rec. Doc. 26].
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) allows a party to file a Motion to Dismiss based on one or more of seven specifically enumerated defenses. F.R.C.P. 12(b). Any motion made pursuant to Rule 12 must rely solely on the contents of the pleadings. Movants are not allowed to make reference to extraneous material in support of a motion to dismiss. F.R.C.P. 12. However, if a movant does reference extraneous materials, Rule 12 mandates that the motion be treated as a Motion for Summary Judgment. Id. Under this Court's Standing Order, properly styled motions to dismiss are referred to the magistrate judge for report and recommendation, and motions for summary judgment are generally considered solely by the district judge.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) states, in pertinent part, that "[i]f, on a motion asserting the defense numbered (6) to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56." F.R.C.P. 12(b). Similarly, Rule 12(c) states, "[i]f, on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56."
The Court notes that Redflex and the City-Parish's Motions to Dismiss [Rec. Docs. 17 26] both reference material outside of the pleadings. Accordingly, the motions [Rec. Docs. 17 26] should have been styled as Motions for Summary Judgment. However, the Court is unable to treat these motions as proper motions for summary judgment as they contain no "separate, short and concise statement of material facts as to which there exists a genuine issue to be tried" in accord with Local Civil Rule 56.2. Considering the varying procedural requirements of motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment and the record before the Court, it is
ORDERED that the Motions to Dismiss [Rec. Doc. 17 26] are DENIED without prejudice to the right of the parties to resubmit the motions in proper form as motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the City-Parish's Motion for Oral Argument [Rec. Doc. 18] is DENIED AS MOOT.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED.