challenged the trial court’s reliance on the SPD which defendants attached to their motion to dismiss. Although the full text of the SPD is not reproduced in, or attached to, plaintiffs’ complaint, it is specifically referred to therein. Therefore, it was properly considered by the trial court without the necessity of converting the motion to one for summary judgment. As many courts have observed, the general rule is that “[w]hen the complaint relies upon a document . . . such a document merges into the pleadings and the court may properly consider it under a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.” Alternative Energy, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 267 F.3d 30, 33 (1st Cir. 2001) (quotation omitted); accord Levy v. Southbrook Int’l Invs., Ltd., 263 F.3d 10, 13 n.3 (2d Cir. 2001) (<HOLDING>); Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 224
holding that documents integral to the complaint are properly considered on a motion to dismiss holding that plan documents could be incorporated without converting the motion to one for summary judgment even though the complaint referred only to the plan and not the accompanying documents 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 holding that district court may consider documents referred to in plaintiffs complaint and central to his claim 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