context: This is so because it was incorporated into the pleadings by reference -- the complaint specifically mentioned it as the Plan under which the Van Nattas' claims arose against Sara Lee. See Deerbrook Pavilion, L.L.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.parenthetical: examining a press release even though it was not expressly part of the pleadings because it was incorporated by reference into the pleadings
citation_a.sentence: Corp. v. Zenith Data Sys. Corp., 987 F.2d 429, 431 (7th Cir.1993) (indicating that "[djocu-ments that a defendant attaches to a motion to dismiss are considered part of the pleadings if they are referred to in the plaintiff’s complaint and are central to [its] claim”); see also Moses.com Sec., Inc. v. Comprehensive Software Sys., Inc., 406 F.3d 1052, 1063 n. 2 (8th Cir.2005) (examining a press release even though it was not expressly part of the pleadings because it was incorporated by reference into the pleadings).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 987 F.2d 429, 431
citation_b.parenthetical: indicating that "[djocu-ments that a defendant attaches to a motion to dismiss are considered part of the pleadings if they are referred to in the plaintiff's complaint and are central to [its] claim"
citation_b.sentence: Corp. v. Zenith Data Sys. Corp., 987 F.2d 429, 431 (7th Cir.1993) (indicating that "[djocu-ments that a defendant attaches to a motion to dismiss are considered part of the pleadings if they are referred to in the plaintiff’s complaint and are central to [its] claim”); see also Moses.com Sec., Inc. v. Comprehensive Software Sys., Inc., 406 F.3d 1052, 1063 n. 2 (8th Cir.2005) (examining a press release even though it was not expressly part of the pleadings because it was incorporated by reference into the pleadings).