which permits us to take into account documents “whose contents are alleged in a complaint and whose authenticity no party questions, but which are not physically attached to the [plaintiffs] pleading.” In re Silicon Graphics Inc. Sec. Litig., 183 F.3d 970, 986 (9th Cir.1999) (quoting Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449, 454 (9th Cir.1994)) (alteration in original). We have extended the “incorporation by reference” doctrine to situations in which the plaintiffs claim depends on the contents of a document, the defendant attaches the document to its motion to dismiss, and the parties do not dispute the authenticity of the document, even though the plaintiff does not explicitly allege the contents of that document in the complaint. Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 706 (9th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); see also Horsley v. Feldt, 304 F.3d 1125,
holding that documents integral to the complaint are properly considered on a motion to dismiss holding that unauthenticated documents may be considered in support of a motion for summary judgment where the documents were not objected to or their authenticity disputed holding that plan documents could be considered without converting the motion to one for summary judgment even though the complaint referred only to the plan and not its associated documents holding that the district court properly considered documents attached to a motion to dismiss that described the terms of plaintiffs group health insurance plan where plaintiff alleged membership in the plan his claims depended on the conditions described in the documents and plaintiff never disputed their authenticity holding that it was appropriate for the district court to refer to the documents attached to the motion to dismiss since the documents were referred to in the complaint