of assets, primarily mortgages and mortgage-backed securities. Id. ¶ 2. During the financial crisis of 2008, both Fannie Mae and Freddie faced a steep reduction in the book value of their assets and lost the public’s confidence. Id. ¶ 4. In response, Congress enacted the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (“HERA”). Id. Shortly thereafter, the Federal Housing Finance Administration (“FHFA”) placed Fannie Mae and Freddie into conservatorship pursuant to the HERA. Id. ¶ 6. The United States Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) exercised its authority under the HERA to provide Fannie Mae and Freddie with capital by entering into agreements with the FHFA. Id.
Discovery to Aid in Establishing Jurisdiction
The Tucker Act confers jurisdiction upon the United States Court of Federal Claims to render judgment on any claim against the United States founded upon a contract. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1491(a)(1) (2012). Under section 2501, a claim accrues “as soon as all events have occurred that are necessary to enable the plaintiff to bring suit, i.e., when ‘all events have occurred to fix the Government’s alleged liability, entitling the claimant to demand payment and sue here for his money.” Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (en banc) (quoting Nager Elec. Co. v. United States, 368 F.2d 847, 851 (Ct. Cl. 1966)). The burden of establishing the court’s subject matter jurisdiction resides with the party seeking to invoke it. See McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. of Ind., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936); see also Reynolds v. Army Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (providing that jurisdiction must be established by a preponderance of the evidence).
Additionally, when deciding a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under RCFC 12(b)(1), the court usually assumes all factual allegations in the complaint are true and draws all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs’ favor. E. Trans-Waste of Md., Inc. v. United States, 27 Fed. Cl. 146, 147-48 (1992). However, a plaintiff cannot rely solely upon allegations in the complaint if the defendant or the court questions jurisdiction. Instead, the plaintiff must bring forth relevant, adequate proof to establish jurisdiction. See McNutt, 298 U.S. at 189. The court may examine relevant evidence in order to decide any factual disputes when ruling upon a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Moyer v. United States, 190 F.3d 1314, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1999); accord Rocovich v. United States, 933 F.2d 991, 993 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (noting that the court “may find it necessary to inquire into jurisdictional facts that are disputed”); Reed Island-MLC, Inc. v. United States, 67 Fed. Cl. 27, 32 (2005) (recognizing that the court may address matters outside the pleadings when ruling upon an RCFC 12(b)(1) motion). Moreover, it is “well established that when a motion to dismiss challenges a jurisdictional fact alleged in a complaint, a court may allow discovery in order to resolve the factual dispute.” Samish Indian Nation v. United States, No. 02-1383L, 2006 WL 5629542, at *4 (Fed. Cl. July 21, 2006). Thus, motions for discovery to meet a challenge to the court’s jurisdiction should be granted to effectuate justice. Indeed, in the summary judgment context, motions filed under RCFC 56(d) “are generally favored and are liberally granted.”
Clear Creek Cmty. Servs. Dist. v. United States, 100 Fed. Cl. 78, 83 (2011) (quoting Chevron USA, Inc. v. United States, 72 Fed. Cl. 817, 819 (2006)); see also Flowers v. United States, 75 Fed. Cl. 615, 626 (2007) (same) (quoting Stearns Airport Equip. Co. v. FMC Corp., 170 F3d. 518, 534 (5th Cir. 1999). Although the procedural posture of this case concerns a motion to