is a licensee. Am. Compl. [# 15] ¶ 14. During the October 8, 2014 oral argument, Plaintiffs’ counsel stated that "Jules Investments may not be the right plaintiff” but noted that Plaintiffs Nick Sculac and Big Cats are "un-doubtably licensed [sic] holders who are being inspected regularly.... ” Trans. [# 39] 56:24-57:5. However, because the Court is considering a motion to dismiss, it must only consider the allegations in the Amended Complaint as true and cannot take counsel’s statement at the oral argument as fact. Accordingly, because the Amended Complaint does not allege that any other Plaintiff is a licensee, the Court assumes for purposes of this Recommendation only that the only licensed Plaintiff is Big Cats. 16 . See Reynoldson v. Shillinger, 907 F.2d 124, 127 (10th Cir.1990)
holding that plaintiff failed to establish pretext where plaintiff was terminated after the employer conducted an investigation into a subordinates allegations of misconduct on the part of the plaintiff and believed the allegations to be true even though plaintiff presented evidence in the lawsuit that the allegations may have been false holding that dismissal was appropriate when plaintiff did not attach the required receipt from the department of administrative services holding that dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim should generally be without prejudice but if the plaintiff has been given an opportunity amend his complaint and fails to do so the dismissal may be with prejudice holding that dismissal of a complaint for insufficient jurisdictional allegations should be without prejudice to amend holding that prejudice should not attach to a dismissal when a plaintiff has made allegations which upon further investigation and development could raise substantial issues