lawsuit [need] not contain specific facts establishing a prima facie case of discrimination under the framework set forth in [McDonnell Douglas].’ " Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 569-70, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (emphasis added) (first alteration in original) (quoting Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 508, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002)). In both contexts, demonstrating that relief is "plausible” is part of the requisite "prima facie showing.” Put differently, there is nothing inconsistent about saying that the defendant must make a "prima facie showing” in one case and saying that the defendant must show that relief is "plausible” in another case. 1 . Sea, e.g., Export Grp. v. Reef Indus., Inc., 54 F.3d 1466, 1470-71 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); see also New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S.
holding that party was an agent under the plain terms of his contracts holding that a party waived the right to allege contrary facts on appeal eg that defendant was not an agent or instrumentality of the mexican government for sovereign immunity purposes where the party alleged that the defendant was an agent or instrumentality in its complaint holding that anonymous statement was admissible as a statement by a partys agent under rule 801d2d and noting that a district court should be presented with sufficient evidence to conclude that the person who is alleged to have made the damaging statement is in fact a party or an agent of that party holding that an entity majorityowned by an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state is itself an agency or instrumentality of that foreign state under the fsia holding that the employer was not the insurers agent