With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to institute the litigation in bad faith, intending only to harass the third parties and not to bring his claim to definitive adjudication.” Id. b. Plaintiffs and/or the Estate’s Lawsuit a Basis for Tortious Interference In their Counterclaims against Plaintiff and their Third Party Complaints against Liza and/or Andrew Kramer, Berck and Life Product failed to allege plausibly that any of the Kramers lacked belief in the merits of this litigation or that they intended this litigation only to harass. Although, arguably, the intent of the Parties is an issue to be determined as a matter of fact, dismissal is appropriate where, as here, such a factual allegation, if asserted, would lack plausibility. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556-57, 127 S.Ct. 1955) (<HOLDING>). Without drawing any conclusions as to the

A: holding that a plaintiffs complaint need only establish a plausible entitlement to relief
B: holding that where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a defendants liability it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief 
C: holding that a plaintiff may present unsubstantiated factual allegations on appeal provided they are consistent with the complaint to show that the complaint should not have been dismissed
D: holding that twombly and iqbals plausibility standard applies
B.