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: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 235 F.3d 1100, 1101
citation_a.parenthetical: stating that "[o]n a motion to dismiss, a court must primarily consider the allegations contained in the complaint, although matters of public and administrative record referenced in the complaint may also be taken into account"
citation_a.sentence: C. v. Shalala, 235 F.3d 1100, 1101 (8lh Cir.2000) (stating that "[o]n a motion to dismiss, a court must primarily consider the allegations contained in the complaint, although matters of public and administrative record referenced in the complaint may also be taken into account”); Venture Assocs.
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.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_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).