With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 913 (Miss.1991) (citing Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Evans, 553 So.2d 1117, 1119-20 (Miss.1989)). ¶ 24. Further, sanctions cannot be brought merely because the underlying facts in a suit were later found to support the defendants’ arguments. In Bean, this Court held that the threshold inquiry must take place at the time of the filing of the lawsuit. Bean, 587 So.2d at 913. Our law is well-settled on the threshold inquiry as to when the possibility of sanctions arises. There is nothing in the record that indicates Tullos was filing suit on behalf of his client without a reasonable basis. ¶25. “Conclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions will not suffice to defeat a motion to dismiss.” Penn Nat’l Gaming, Inc. v. Ratliff, 954 So.2d 427, 431 (Miss.2007) (<HOLDING>). Here, Tullos had a client who had allegedly

A: holding that the movant failed to establish that plea counsel coerced him to plead guilty to avoid taking the case to trial
B: holding if plaintiff does not serve report as to particular defendant trial court must dismiss that defendant from suit
C: holding that a defendant need only plead the facts upon which a finding of solidary liability would be based ie it is sufficient that a defendant plead facts that would if proven cause the named defendant to be considered joint tortfeasors and therefore solidarily liable
D: holding that defendant failed to plead sufficient facts and instructing the trial court to dismiss the plaintiff from the case
D.