assumption that all the allega tions in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Id. at 1965 (citations omitted). However, “[a]sking for plausible grounds to infer [a violation of the securities laws] does not impose a probability requirement at the pleading stage; it simply calls for enough fact to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of [the violation].” Id. at 1969. When considering a motion to dismiss, the “court must limit itself to facts stated in the complaint or in documents attached to the complaint as exhibits or incorporated in the complaint by reference.” Kramer v. Time Warner Inc., 937 F.2d 767, 773 (2d Cir.1991); see also San Leandro Emergency Med. Group Profit Sharing Plan v. Philip Morris Cos., 75 F.3d 801, 808-09 (2d Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). In addition, “[o]n a motion to dismiss a
holding that documents integral to the complaint are properly considered on a motion to dismiss holding that although a district court may not consider matters extraneous to the pleadings a document integral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint may be considered without converting the motion to dismiss in one for summary judgment holding that it was appropriate for the district court to refer to the documents attached to the motion to dismiss since the documents were referred to in the complaint holding that where a complaint makes express reference to attachments that are central to the plaintiffs claims those documents may be considered on a motion to dismiss without converting it into a motion for summary judgment holding that 1 the complaint is deemed to include any documents incorporated in it by reference and any document upon which it solely relies and which is integral to the complaint and that the court may consider such documents on a motion to dismiss pursuant to fedrcivp 12b6