With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the Court construes each count as if it were alleged against both Siemens and Dandekar. 3 . The Court construes Count IV as a state law claim because neither Title VII nor Section 1981 is mentioned as a basis for this count, and Plaintiff's response only proffers state law arguments. (R. 27, Pl.’s Resp. at 12.) 4 . Were the Court to consider these additional documents, the Court would need to exercise its discretion and convert the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment, pursuant to Rule 12(d). Because the Court finds that consideration of such documents would not change its analysis, however, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to convert the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgement. See Hecker v. Deere & Co., 556 F.3d 575, 583 (7th Cir.2009)

A: holding that motion to dismiss cannot be treated as summary judgment
B: holding that district court has discretion when deciding to convert a defendants motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment
C: holding that a court must convert a motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment under fedrcivp 56 only when the jurisdictional question intertwines with the merits of the case
D: holding that a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment precluded default judgment
B.