With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 611 F.2d at 707; McGuirl v. White, 86 F.3d 1232, 1234 (D.C.Cir.1996); In re El San Juan Hotel, 809 F.2d 151, 155 n. 6 (1st Cir.1987). In this case, the Debtor clearly has standing to object to the Cavalry Claim, because the estate likely will have a surplus after all creditors are paid. The more interesting question is whether the Trustee has standing to respond to the Claim Objection. The Debtor did not raise this issue. Nevertheless, it should be considered because questions of standing are akin to subject matter jurisdiction and must be considered sua sponte. Carto v. Oakley (In re Oakley), 503 B.R. 407, 421 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.2013), citing In re Weaver, 632 F.2d 461, 462, n. 1 (5th Cir.1980) and FW/PBS, Inc., v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 230-31, 110 S.Ct. 596, 107 L.Ed.2d 603 (1990) (<HOLDING>). The Bankruptcy Code gives the Trustee the

A: holding that federal courts have a virtually unflagging obligation to exercise their subject matter jurisdiction despite the pendency of state court proceedings
B: holding that a federal court is obliged to determine its own jurisdiction for each case
C: holding that federal courts are under an obligation to examine their own jurisdiction and standing is perhaps the most important of the jurisdiction doctrines
D: recognizing federal courts duty to determine matter of its own jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it becomes apparent that jurisdiction may be lacking
C.