With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". was not present in the copy of the cross-claim complaint that IICNA filed with the court on February 27, 2007, and the claim was not present in any pleading or motion filed with the court until IICNA filed its motion for summary judgment on June 25, 2007. The claim relating to the invalidity of the Non-Pyramiding endorsements has not been pled, and summary judgment cannot be granted for unpled claims. See Aldinger v. Spectrum Control, Inc., 207 Fed.Appx. 177, 180 n. 1, 181 (3d Cir.2006) (affirming the district court’s dismissal of a claim on the grounds that the party had not raised the issue in its pleadings, but instead first raised the issue in a brief filed in opposition to a motion for summary judgment); cf. White v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., 899 F.2d 555, 559 (6th Cir. 1990) (<HOLDING>). Consequently, IICNA’s motion for summary

A: holding that the court may consider an article not attached to the complaint in determining whether to dismiss the complaint because the article was integral to and explicitly relied on in the complaint and because the plaintiffs did not challenge its authenticity
B: holding that a party could not pursue an employment discrimination claim under one article of a labor agreement when the complaint was framed exclusively in terms of another article of the same agreement
C: holding that a federal habeas court may grant specific performance of a plea agreement in the face of evidence that the state has breached the terms of such an agreement
D: holding that when the type of insurance procured is not listed in article 2104 the article does not apply
B.