judicial experience and common sense. But where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged— but it has not ‘shown’ — ‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.’ ” (alteration and citation omitted) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2))). Generally, “[i]n adjudicating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a district court must confine its consideration to facts stated on the face of the complaint, in documents appended to the complaint or incorporated in the complaint by reference, and to matters of which judicial notice may be taken.” Leonard F. v. Isr. Disc. Bank of N.Y., 199 F.3d 99, 107 (2d Cir.1999) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Staehr v. Hartford Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc., 547 F.3d 406, 424-25 (2d Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); Munno v. Town of Orangetown, 391 F.Supp.2d
holding that district court properly took judicial notice of and considered media reports state court complaints and regulatory filings on a motion to dismiss holding that a court may not take judicial notice of separate legal proceedings on a motion to dismiss and defenses of res judicata and collateral estoppel must be resolved through motion for summary judgment recognizing that a court may take judicial notice of court filings and other matters of public record holding that documents integral to the complaint are properly considered on a motion to dismiss recognizing that a court may take judicial notice of a document filed in another court  to establish the fact of such litigation and related filings