We are late on this one. We try and discuss cases within a week of their appearance, but sometimes we miss our deadline. Developer and Pima County disputed who was entitled to an environmental enhancement fee charged to guests at the Starr Pass Resort.  The opinion is interesting for its guidance on what extrinsic evidence may be considered on a motion to dismiss. If the motion will be converted to a motion for summary judgment under Rule 12(d), this does not mean the defendant must then answer and discovery proceed.  Under 12(d), a trial court has considerable discretion in providing “a reasonable opportunity to present all the material that is pertinent to the motion.” This does not “compel courts to require an answer, discovery, or statements of fact.” If a party needs some discovery, then the party should follow the requirements of 56(d). The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s reasoning rejecting the defunct developer’s claim to the fees instead of the buyer who purchased the property at a trustee sale. All of this goes back twenty-five years. Like Jarndyce v. Jarndyce, this case does not want to end until the last hope dies, and there are no more fees to earn.