ORDER
The opinion filed on January 2, 2013, and published at 704 F.3d 1119 , is amended as follows:
At 704 F.3d at 1123 , after the paragraph ending with the phrase, < ... came from the pool of previously issued shares. >, insert the following as a new paragraph:
652 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir.2011), where there were two plausible explanations in contention. Id. at 1216 . “If there are two alternative explanations, one advanced by defendant and the other advanced by plaintiff, both of which are plausible, plaintiffs complaint survives a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).” Id. (emphasis added). Here, however, plaintiffs’ explanation is merely possible rather than plausible. To render their explanation plausible, plaintiffs must do more than allege facts that are merely consistent with both their explanation and defendants’ competing explanation. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 . The plaintiff in Starr did so. He alleged facts which, accepted as true, tended to exclude the possibility that the defendant was ignorant of the unconstitutional conduct of his subordinates (the competing alternative explanation for…