of the numerous Motions for Summary Judgment filed by other Defendants in the case, the Plaintiffs were on notice that they had to come forward with evidence supporting their claims. The claims against the Fifth Third National Bank are identical to those against Crestar, the other bank, and the guaranty agencies. Thus, because the Plaintiffs were on notice and had an opportunity to present any and all evidence they possessed tending to support their claims, the Court may properly enter Summary Judgment sua sponte in favor of Fifth Third National Bank. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 326, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2554, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); McBride v. Merrell Dow & Pharmaceuticals, 800 F.2d 1208, 1212 (D.C.Cir.1986); Avianca, Inc. v. Corriea, 705 F.Supp. 666, 684 n. 5 (D.D.C.1989)
holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that motion for summary judgment was not opposed holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that a motion for summary judgment was not opposed holding that sua sponte grant of summary judgment without notice to the parties constitutes reversible error recognizing that sua sponte grants of summary judgment are appropriate so long as the party against whom the summary judgment is granted has had notice and opportunity to put forward evidence in opposition thereof holding that arguments not raised in opposition to a motion for summary judgment are waived