With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". This Court has reviewed the DC/CV 32 and DC/CV 33 court orders submitted by Plaintiff, and finds that her exhibits are factually inconsistent with her claim. First, the collection lawsuit itself reflects that Tapper filed the action in Sawyer Property’s name. See Tapper’s Supp. Mem. Ex. 2. Second, both court orders list Sawyer Property as the judgment creditor. See PL’s Am. Compl. Exs. C, D. This Court gives greater weight to the facts presented in the court orders than to Plaintiffs own allegations, because when a “document contradicts a complaint to which it is attached, the document’s facts or allegations trump those in the complaint.” See, e.g., Flannery v. Recording Indus. Ass’n of Am., 354 F.3d 632, 638 (7th Cir.2004); see also Veney v. Wyche, 293 F.3d 726, 730 (4th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). As this Court found in Kennedy, the FDCPA

A: holding that documents integral to the complaint are properly considered on a motion to dismiss
B: holding that a court need not accept as true conclusory allegations which are contradicted by documents referred to in the complaint
C: holding that district court may consider documents referred to in plaintiffs complaint and central to his claim
D: holding that a court need not accept a plaintiffs allegation if it contradicts documents properly considered with the complaint
D.