The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Ronald S.W. Lew Senior, U.S. District Court Judge
re: Third-Party Defendant Painters and Allied Trades District Council 36's Motion to Dismiss Third-Party Complaint 
On October 5, 2011, Third-Party Defendant Painters and Allied Trade District Council 36's ["Painters Council"] Motion to Dismiss Third-Party Complaint  came on for regular calendar before the Court. The Court having reviewed all papers submitted pertaining to this Motion and having considered all arguments presented to the Court, NOW FINDS AND RULES AS FOLLOWS:
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court hereby GRANTS Third-Party Defendant Painters Council's Motion to Dismiss and DISMISSES the Third-Party Complaint without leave to amend.
On December 8, 2009, Third-Party Plaintiff Premier Drywall dba Precon Industries Inc. ("PreCon") filed a Complaint with this Court, seeking a judgment declaring that PreCon was not bound by the terms of a Master Labor collective bargaining agreement ("MLA") and not subject to arbitration. That Action is Precon Industries, Inc. dba Premier Drywall, et al. v. Painters and Allied Trades District Council, et al., No. CV 09-09016 RSWL(JCx)("Premier I").
On January 20, 2010, Defendants in Premier I, which included Painters Council, filed a Motion to Dismiss Complaint. On March 24, 2010, this Court issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss without leave to Amend. This Court found that PreCon was bound by the MLA and must submit to arbitration.
Accordingly, on September 8, 2010, a dispute between PreCon and the trust fund of Painters Council's trade union was heard before an arbitrator. On September 20, 2010, the arbitrator issued a decision against PreCon.
On February 20, 2010, Plaintiff Ana M. Hanson ("Plaintiff") filed a Complaint against PreCon, seeking an Order to Confirm the Arbitration Award . On May 31, 2011, PreCon filed its Third-Party Complaint against Painters Council . II. DISCUSSION
As a preliminary matter, both parties have filed requests for this Court to take judicial notice of certain documents relevant to its papers. Generally, a court may not consider material beyond the complaint in ruling on a 12(b)(6) motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). However, "[a] court may take judicial notice of 'matters of public record' without converting a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment," as long as the facts noticed are not "subject to reasonable dispute." Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted).
Pursuant to this standard, the Court hereby GRANTS, Third-Party Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice of three documents associated with Premier I. The Court finds that these documents are a matter of public record and are not subject to reasonable dispute.
The Court, however, DENIES as Moot Third-Party Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice Filed in Conjunction with Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Third-Party Complaint. The Court finds that the documents referred to in ...