With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". facts alleged in the complaint must be taken as true before deciding whether there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct has occurred. This is no different than the standard imposed in either a criminal or a civil context for motions to dismiss the initiating pleading. See N.M. Life Ins. Guar. Ass’n v. Quinn & Co., 111 N.M. 750, 753, 809 P.2d 1278, 1281 (1991) (“A motion to dismiss tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint. In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, we must accept as true all well-pleaded facts and question only whether the plaintiff might prevail under any state of facts provable under the claim.”); State v. Wasson, 1998-NMCA-087, ¶ 5, 125 N.M. 656, 964 P.2d 820 (<HOLDING>). {11} To the extent that Respondent contends

A: holding that when a respondent fails to challenge factual allegations contained in a petition for the writ of mandamus the appellate court accepts as true the factual statements in the petition
B: holding that when deciding a motion for judgment on the pleadings the court must construe the material allegations in the complaint in favor of the nonmoving party as true
C: recognizing that when considering pretrial motions attacking the sufficiency of an indictment or information the factual allegations in the states pleadings are taken as true
D: recognizing that the partys factual complaint if taken as true affirmatively established that the other tribunal had no jurisdiction
C.