With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Inc., 144 F.3d 252, 258 n.5 (3d Cir. 1998) (quoting Wetzel v. Tucker, 139 F.3d 380, 383 n.2 (3d Cir. 1998)). 15 . Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). 16 . Sarko v. Penn-Del Directory Co., 968 F.Supp. 1026, 1031 (E.D. Pa. 1997) (citation omitted), aff’d 189 F.3d 464 (3d Cir. 1999). 17 . J. Geils Band Emp. Benefit Plan v. Smith Barney Shearson, Inc., 76 F.3d 1245, 1251 (1st Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). 18 . Id. (quoting Dow v. United Bhd. of Carpenters, 1 F.3d 56, 58 (1st Cir. 1993)). 19 . Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). 20 . Id.; see also Delta Mills, Inc. v. GMAC Commercial Fin., LLC (In re Delta Mills, Inc.), 404 B.R. 95, 105 (Bankr. D. Del. 2009) (<HOLDING>). 21 . Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S.Ct.

A: holding that an issue is genuine when reasonable minds could disagree on the result
B: holding that abuse of discretion in denying a 60b motion is established only when no reasonable person could agree with the district court and there is no abuse of discretion if a reasonable person could disagree as to the propriety of the courts action
C: holding that an issue is genuine if the evidence is sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party
D: holding that dispute regarding material fact is genuine if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party
A.