They claim that Counts Four through Ten fail as a matter of law, essentially moving to limit the Amended Complaint to a contract action. The standard for granting a motion to dismiss is well settled. When, as in this case, a plaintiffs complaint fails to state a claim for which there is a plausible entitlement to relief, the Court must dismiss the complaint. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1974, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). While the well-pled factual allegations of a complaint must be accepted as true for purposes of a motion to dismiss, neither conclusory allegations nor legal conclusions disguised as factual allegations need be accepted as such. See id. at 1965; see also Ridge at Red Hawk, L.L.C. v. Schneider, 493 F.3d 1174, 1177 (10th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). The burden is on the plaintiff to frame a
holding that courts must construe the complaint liberally in favor of the plaintiff by  giving the plaintiff the benefit of all the inferences that can be reasonably drawn from the pleaded facts holding that the mere metaphysical possibility that some plaintiff could prove some set of facts in support of the pleaded claims is insufficient the complaint must give the court reason to believe that this plaintiff has a reasonable likelihood of mustering factual support for these claims holding that a complaint will not be dismissed unless it appear beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim holding that on a motion for summary judgment the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiffs position will be insufficient and there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff holding when constitutional claims are premised on the notion that the united states has some contractual obligation to the plaintiff that it has failed to satisfy the claims are contractually based and must be heard in the court of federal claims