offered and the funds that [the] plaintiff in Braden alleged should have been offered.” ECF No. 56 at 11. The same is true here: Terraza alleges that the Defendants could have offered the exact same investment option for a lower price based on the Plan’s size. The Court can reasonably infer from this allegation that the Defendants acted imprudently by selecting the more expensive option, all else being equal. Although the Defendants may ultimately persuade the Court that they had legitimate reasons to select the challenged investment options, and thus did not act imprudently, Terraza has satisfied her burden at this stage of the litigation by alleging facts from which the Court can reasonably infer that the Defendants’ decision-making process was flawed. See Braden, 588 F.3d at 596 (<HOLDING>). Defendants argue that the challenged expense
holding that the plaintiff waived an objection to the defendants failure to plead qualified immunity as an affirmative defense holding that to rebut presumption plaintiff need only allege specific facts not plead evidence holding that although the defendants could have chosen funds with higher fees for various reasons rule 8 does not require a plaintiff to plead facts tending to rebut all possible lawful explanations for a defendants conduct holding that a plaintiff does not have to possess actual knowledge of all the relevant facts in order for the cause of action to accrue holding that defendant failed to plead sufficient facts and instructing the trial court to dismiss the plaintiff from the case