Accordingly, WNIN's request for oral argument is denied. [Dkt. 22.] 2 . This facts described herein contain all reasonable inferences in favor of the Plaintiffs as required by the standard of review on a motion to dismiss. 3 . In support of their motions to dismiss, some of the defendants incorporate arguments advanced by other defendants. [See, e.g., Dkt. 24 at 2 (brief by Ms. Locker and the Local League incorporating arguments from dkt. 21 at 3 — 10).] Because Mr. Gluck and Mr. Cunningham had an adequate opportunity to respond to all of the Defendants’ motions, the Court can impugn the arguments made by any defendant to all of the defendants to the extent the arguments are equally effective at barring a claim. See Malak v. Associated Physicians, Inc., 784 F.2d 277, 280 (7th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). Because the arguments regarding standing,
holding that in ruling on a motion for summary judgment the trial court is limited to the grounds raised in the motion 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 the trial court did not violate due process in considering the defendants motion to dismiss because the defendant had corrected its error in not serving its motion to dismiss on the plaintiff and because the plaintiff had received adequate time to consider and respond to the arguments made in the motion holding that where one defendant files a motion that is equally effective in barring the claim against the other defendants the court may sua sponte enter judgment in favor of the additional nonmoving defendant if the plaintiff had an adequate opportunity to argue in opposition to the motion holding that the court may sua sponte refuse to enter judgment for plaintiff if the complaint on its face fails to state a cause of action as to which relief can be granted