With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". argument is fallacious. In the instant case, even if notice was adequate and Claremont failed to rebut the presumption of receipt, there can be a finding of excusable neglect, as the Court finds that Claremont’s actions were not willful. Specifically, Claremont responded quickly after discovering the First Estimation Order, filing its Motion for Reconsideration just eleven days later. See Journal Register, 2010 WL 5376278 at *1, *3 (finding that even though claimant’s delay in responding was due to her attorney’s tardily discovering a “previously unreviewed Claim Objection” that was in his possession, the claimant did not act willfully “because she did not have actual knowledge [of the] proceeding and promptly sought relief ”) (emphasis added); see also JWP, 231 B.R. at 210, 212-213 (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added). In addition, there is no

A: holding an internal error that caused the movant to receive the trustees notice of motion twentysix days after the court heard the trustees motion  may have constituted excusable neglect had the movant made a prompt motion for reconsideration and pointing out it is the movants actions after he became aware of the existence of the trustees motion  that reaches the level of willfulness
B: holding a bankruptcy trustees rule 60b6 motion timely despite a delay of eighteen months from the date of the court order and fifteen months from the denial of the trustees written request for a refund government found to have been put on notice of intention to reopen settlement by earlier actions of trustee
C: holding in a capital case that the defendant waived his argument that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a change of venue where the trial court took the motion under advisement but the defendant failed to seek a ruling on the motion and failed to renew the motion after the jurors had been qualified
D: holding that motion for reconsideration may only be granted if the movant demonstrates controlling law or factual matters put before the court on the underlying motion that the movant believes the court overlooked and that might reasonably be expected to alter the courts decision
A.