unlawfully.”87 Moreover, “[a]sking for plausible grounds . . . calls for enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of [wrongdoing].”88 The plausibility determination is “a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.”89 No matter the context, however, “[w]here a complaint pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability, it ‘stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’”90 When disposing of a motion to dismiss, the Court “accept[s] as true all factual allegations in the complaint and draw[s] all inferences from the facts alleged in the light most favorable to [the plaintiff].”91 However, “the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in the complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.”92 “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”93 As a matter of procedure, the Third Circuit has instructed that: Under the pleading regime established by Twombly and Iqbal, a court reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint must take three steps. First, it 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 Connelly v. Lane Const. Corp., 809 F.3d 780, 786 (3d Cir. 2016) (Jordan, J.) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. Id. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Phillips v. County. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 228 (3d Cir. 2008) (Nygaard, J.). Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555); see also Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009) (Nygaard, J.) (“After Iqbal, it is clear that conclusory or ‘bare-bones’ allegations will no longer survive a motion to dismiss.”). - 25 -