The court disagrees. All the plaintiffs have done is state a historical fact — that CD & R did not respond to Mail Boxes Etc.’s inquiry — and then assert that CD & R did not respond because they were already in negotiations with the defendants. From that fact and bare assertion, the plaintiffs take the further leap that the defendants intentionally misrepresented the timing of their discussions with CD & R. Compl. 1143; Pis.’ Opp’n at 23 n. 19. “[A] pleading technique that couples a factual statement with a conclusory allegation of fraudulent intent is insufficient to support the inference that the defendants acted recklessly or with fraudulent intent.” Rombach, 355 F.3d at 176 (internal quotations omitted); see also In re Navarre Corp. Sec. Litig., 299 F.3d 735, 742 (8th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). The plaintiffs do not any allege any facts
holding that making a nonfrivolous allegation is insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction holding that a claim must be facially plausible in order to survive a motion to dismiss holding that the bare assertion that a dismissal without prejudice was favorable to the plaintiff was insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss holding that a conclusory boilerplate assertion of a municipal policy or custom was insufficient to survive motion to dismiss holding that a mere allegation of fraud is insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to the pslra