omplaint are true (even if doubtful in fact), see, e.g. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 508, n. 1, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002). Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (198.9) (" Rule 12(b)(6) does not countenance ... dismissals based on a judge's disbelief of a

. Epstein, et al. Page 4 doubtful in fact), see, e.g., Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A.. 534 U.S. 506, 508, n. 1. 122 S.Ct. 992. 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327. 109 S.Ct. 1827. 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) (" Rule 12(b)(6) does not countenance ... dismissals based on a judge's disbelief of a c

mplaint are true (even if doubtful in fact), see, e.g., Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 508, n. 1, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) (" Rule 12(b)(6) does not countenance ... dismissals based on a judge's disbelief of a c

mplaint are true (even if doubtful in fact), see, e.g., Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 508, n. 1, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) (" Rule 12(b)(6) does not countenance ... dismissals based on a judge's disbelief of a c

mplaint are true (even if doubtful in fact), see, e.g., Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 508, n. 1, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) (" Rule 12(b)(6) does not countenance ... dismissals based on a judge's disbelief of a c

omplaint are true (even if doubtful in fact), see, e.g., Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A. 534 U.S. 506, 508, n. 1, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Q. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) (" Rule 12(bX6) does not countenance ... dismissals based on a judge's disbelief of a com

its Memorandum Opinion dated May 16, 2011, however, the Court stated: C. The Court Will Not Dismiss the Matter Based on Fancelli's Defense of 3 See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 326-27 (1989) See Leuthner v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Northeastern Pa., 454 F.3d 120 (3d Cir. 2006)(affirming dismissal under Ru

Island known as the Office Pavilion." FAC„ para. 4, p. 2. They also state that Plaintiff L.S.J., LLC, is the owner of Little St. James Island. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 326-27 (1989) 2 See Leuthner v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Northeastern Pa. 454 17.3d 120 (3d Cir. 2006)(affirming dismissal under

v. Epstein, et al. age 4 doubtful in fact), see, e.g., Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506. 508, n. 1, 122 S.Ct. 992. 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002); Neitzke v. Williams. 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827. 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) (" Rule 12(b)(6) does not countenance ... dismissals based on a judge's disbelief of a c