Where a plaintiff alleges that an agent of a court appointed receiver is liable for misconduct committed outside the scope of designated authority, but where the agent of the receiver moves to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) citing the Barton doctrine and the purported need to obtain pre-filing permission from the court that appointed the receiver, is the trial court prohibited from weighing or resolving disputed facts about whether the alleged misconduct was ultra vires in deciding the Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss?

Where a plaintiff alleges that an agent of a court-appointed receiver is liable for misconduct committed outside the scope of designated authority, but where the agent of the receiver moves to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) citing the Barton doctrine and the purported need to obtain pre-filing permission from the court that appointed the receiver, is the trial court prohibited from weighing or resolving disputed facts about whether the alleged misconduct was ultra vires in deciding the Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss?