With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". description of the nature of the case as a contract action and a section 2 — 1401 proceeding was not misleading. Borek is correct that the sufficiency of plaintiffs’ complaint is not at issue because the burden is on the petitioner to show that it is entitled to relief under section 2 — 1401, and the sufficiency of plaintiffs complaint was never addressed in relation to the section 2 — 1401 petition. Nonetheless, inclusion of this issue in Domino’s docketing statement appears to be a benign error rather than one which will result in a waste of resources and expense for the parties and this court. In fact, neither party has briefed or argued that issue on appeal; we therefore find no prejudice resulting to plaintiffs. (Cf. Kmoch v. Klein (1991), 214 Ill. App. 3d 185, 573 N.E.2d 267 (<HOLDING>).) Consequently, we deny Borek’s motion.

A: recognizing that a district court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint for failure to serve after notice to the plaintiff
B: holding that the defendants failure to timely serve a notice of appeal and docketing statement did not prejudice the plaintiff and therefore would not serve as a basis to dismiss the appeal
C: holding that a choice of law provision in a lease did not serve as a basis for jurisdiction
D: holding that identification of appellant in notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement and that the failure to name a party in a notice to appeal constitutes a failure of that party to appeal
B.