With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". personal injury suit.” (Doc. No. 11 at 8, Page ID #252.) Plaintiffs maintain that campaign finance reports, filed September 3, 2010, reveal that employees of FirstEnergy made campaign contributions to Chief Justice O’Conner and Justice Lanzinger immediately prior to the Ohio Supreme Court’s ruling in the personal injury action. Plaintiffs fail to indicate why they were unable to incorporate these public records into their complaint prior to the filing of the present motion. More fundamentally, the existence of additional campaign contributions close-in-time to an official act is not enough to establish a quid pro quo agreement, and the Court is not required to accept plaintiffs’ bare legal conclusions as what these contributions suggest. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (<HOLDING>). Ultimately, the Court finds that it would be

A: holding that in the absence of an adverse credibility determination the court must accept petitioners testimony as true
B: holding that a court is not bound to accept as a true legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation and should disregard mere conclusory statements
C: holding that the court need not accept as true  unwarranted factual inferences
D: holding that a court need not accept as true conclusory allegations which are contradicted by documents referred to in the complaint
B.