in order to give Hodo adequate notice, Defendants were required to at least mention, even if briefly, why they are entitled to qualified immunity for their purported failure to knock and announce. See Hernandez v. Cook Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 634 F.3d 906, 913 (7th Cir. 2011) (holding that defendants' three-paragraph discussion of qualified immunity in their opening brief provided sufficient notice and distinguishing it from cases where qualified immunity was discussed in a footnote or only one sentence); Citizens Against Ruining the Env't v. E.P.A., 535 F.3d 670, 675 (7th Cir. 2008) (one sentence insufficient to raise issue in opening brief); see also, e.g., Thorncreek Apartments III, LLC v. Vill of Park Forest, 970 F.Supp.2d 828, 851 (N.D. Ill. 2013) (defendants' qualified immunity argument waived on summary judgment when it consisted of only two conclusory sentences); Goodman v. Clark, No. 2:09 CV 355, 2017 WL 4340201, at *6-7 (N.D. Ind. Sept. 29, 2017) (defendants failed to properly raise qualified immunity on summary judgment where “they wr[o]te at length about qualified immunity regarding their excessive force claims, [but] they never once mention[ed] qualified immunity in relation to their false arrest/seizure claim”).