With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Plaintiff-Appellant Barbara Nurczewska appeals the dismissal of her first amended complaint without leave to amend. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Nurczewska’s argument to set aside the foreclosure sale based upon California’s deed-of-trust statutes is misplaced. An agreement between the lender and a non-trustor third party, like Nurczewska, does not void the sale. See Nguyen v. Calhoun, 105 Cal.App.4th 428, 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 436, 450 (2003) (<HOLDING>). Nurczewska’s breach of contract claim fails

A: holding that after a judgment entry grants a decree of foreclosure and order of sale the foreclosure action cannot be dismissed as the judgment is final
B: holding that the debtor is entitled to cure the arrearage until entry of an order confirming the foreclosure sale completes the foreclosure process under oklahoma law
C: holding that a nonstatutory postponement  does not constitute an irregularity in the foreclosure proceeding itself that could justify setting aside a foreclosure sale
D: holding that a failure to comply with the foreclosure statutes invalidates a foreclosure sale
C.