OPINION & ORDER The Mid-New York Environmental and Sustainability Promotion Committee (“NYenvironcon”), Robert Majcher, Grace Woodard, and Alex Scilla (“Individual Plaintiffs”; collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring this Action, pursuant to 33 U.S.C. §1365 and New York state law, against Dragon Springs Buddhist, Inc., (“Dragons Springs” or “Defendant”), alleging Defendant discharged Fecal Coliform into waters surrounding its property. (See generally FAC (Dkt. No. 14).) Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss. (Not. of Mot. (Dkt. No. 19).) For the following reasons, the Motion is granted. I. Background A. Materials Considered As an initial matter, the Court must determine whether it may consider certain exhibits attached to Defendant’s Motion, including: (1) permits issued to Defendant by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“NYSDEC”), (see Decl. of Joshua J. Grauer, Esq. (“Grauer Decl.”), Exs. B, C (Dkt. Nos. 20-2, 20-3.); (2) Defendant’s stormwater pollution prevention plan (“SWPP”) (see id., Ex. D (Dkt. No. 20-4)); (3) Plaintiffs’ Notice of Intent to Sue (“NOI”), (see id., Ex. E (Dkt. No. 20-5)); (3) a NOI filed in a case relied on by Defendant, (see id., Ex. G (Dkt. No. 20-7)); (4) a letter from NYSDEC to Defendant regarding the instant suit, (see id., Ex. F (Dkt. No. 20-6)); (5) several selections from webpages discussing the background of NYenvironcon and the Individual Plaintiffs, (id., Exs. H, I, J (Dkt Nos. 20-8, 20-9, 20-10)); and (6) materials issued by the Department of State and Department of Justice (id. Exs. K, L (Dkt. Nos. 20-11, 20-12)). Generally, “when considering a motion to dismiss, the Court’s review is confined to the pleadings themselves, because to go beyond the allegations in the complaint would convert the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56.” Garcia v. Dezba Asset Recovery, Inc., 665 F. Supp. 3d 390, 396 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) (alterations adopted) (quotation marks omitted). However, “the Court’s consideration of documents attached to, or incorporated by reference in the complaint, and matters of which judicial notice may be taken, would not convert the motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment.” Id. (alteration adopted); see also Bellin v. Zucker, 6 F.4th 463, 473 (2d Cir. 2021) (explaining that “when ruling on Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss,” courts may “consider the complaint in its entirety, as well as…documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may take judicial notice”) (quotation marks omitted); Hu v. City of New York, 927 F.3d 81, 88 (2d Cir. 2019) (“In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court may consider ‘only the facts alleged in the pleadings, documents attached as exhibits or incorporated by reference in the pleadings, and matters of which judicial notice may be taken.’”) (alteration adopted) (quoting Samuels v. Air Transp. Loc. 504, 992 F.2d 12, 15 (2d Cir. 1993)). “[A] a court may incorporate documents referenced where (1) [the] plaintiff relies on the materials in framing the complaint, (2) the complaint clearly and substantially references the documents, and (3) the document’s authenticity or accuracy is undisputed.” Stewart v. Riviana Foods Inc., No. 16-CV-6157, 2017 WL 4045952, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 11, 2017) (emphasis omitted) (collecting cases); see also Dunkelberger v. Dunkelberger, No. 14-CV-3877, 2015 WL 5730605, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2015) (“To be incorporated by reference, the complaint must make a clear, definite, and substantial reference to the documents, and to be integral to a complaint, the plaintiff must have (1) actual notice of the extraneous information and (2) relied upon the documents in framing the complaint.” (alterations adopted) (quoting Bill Diodato Photography LLC v. Avon Prods., Inc., No. 12-CV-847, 2012 WL 4335164, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2012))). There is no real dispute that the Court can consider Defendant’s Permits and Plaintiffs’ NOI. Plaintiffs rely on and substantially reference each of those documents in the FAC, (see, e.g., FAC
3, 6, 9, 44-47), and do not object to their consideration, (see Mem. of Law in Opp. (“Pls’ Mem.”) at 19 (Dkt. No. 25)). Accordingly, those documents are properly incorporated by reference. See Cromwell-Gibbs v. Staybridge Suite Times Square, No. 16-CV-5169, 2017 WL 2684063, at *1 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. June 20, 2017) (holding documents incorporated by reference when the complaint made “direct reference” to the documents and their contents). The Court, however, will not consider Defendant’s SWPP or the NYSDEC’s letter. Neither document is referenced in the FAC, and neither one — despite its official nature — appears to fit traditional categories of information subject to judicial notice like “documents retrieved from official government websites.” See Douglas v. City of Peekskill, No. 21-CV-10644, 2023 WL 2632217, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2023) (quoting Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Wrights Mill Holdings, LLC, 127 F. Supp. 3d 156, 166 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)). Although Defendant argues that, to the extent it moves under 12(b)(1), extraneous documents may be considered to resolve disputed jurisdictional facts, see Zappia Middle East Constr. Co. v. Emirate of Abu Dhabi, 215 F.3d 247, 253 (2d Cir. 2000), it does not identify any disputes of fact for these documents to resolve, (see generally Mem. of Law in Supp. of Def’s Mot. (“Def’s Mem.”) (Dkt. No. 21)). Finally, the Court need not address the remaining exhibits attached to Defendant’s Papers. Defendant clarifies that these exhibits only “provide general background information about the parties,” and they do not relate in any way to the merits of the instant Motion. (See Def’s Mem. 12 n.10 (discussing Exs. G-L).) B. Factual Background The following facts are drawn from the FAC and associated documents incorporated by reference and are assumed true for the purposes of resolving the instant Motion. See Div. 1181 Amalgamated Transit Union-N.Y. Emps. Pension Fund v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 9 F.4th 91, 94 (2d Cir. 2021) (per curiam). To the extent any of the documents “relied on in the [FAC] contradict[] allegations in the [FAC], the document, not the allegations, control, and the [C]ourt need not accept the allegations in the [FAC] as true.” Sander v. Enerco Grp., Inc., No. 21-CV-10684, 2023 WL 1779691, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2023) (quoting Poindexter v. EMI Record Grp. Inc., No. 11-CV-559, 2012 WL 1027639, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2012)); Streamlined Consultants, Inc. v. EBF Holdings LLC, No. 21-CV-9528, 2022 WL 4368114, at *1 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2022) (same). Defendant is an organization that acts as the world headquarters of the Falun Gong movement and hosts eight Shen Yun music and dance companies. (FAC 1.) It operates a large, roughly 393-acre, compound in Deerpark, New York, comprised of numerous structures including a school, housing, and a performing arts center. (Id.
