With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 28, 2002 filed claim. Persofsky attached the following to his replacement claim: (1) itemized statement; (2) employment agreement; (3) arbitration demand. 3 . Persofsky's motion to lift the automatic stay is embedded in the "CONCLUSION” of "DEFENDANT BARRY PERSOFSKY'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEBTOR'S COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AN orp. (In re Meyertech Corp.), 831 F.2d 410, 418 (3d Cir.1987)(Court reasoned that creditor’s filing a proof of claim on a pre-petition breach of contract action created an action in bankruptcy court that "[b]y its very nature [] fits directly under the more specific definition of a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2)(B) ...."); Wood v. Wood (In re Wood), 825 F.2d 90, 97-98 (5th Cir.1987)(<HOLDING>); Atassi v. McLaren (In re McLaren), 990 F.2d

A: holding that the operative fact is whether or not the creditor has notice of the debtors bankruptcy proceeding in time to file a timely proof of claim
B: holding that when a creditor files a proof of claim the bankruptcy court has core jurisdiction to determine that claim even if it was a prepetition contract claim arising under state law
C: holding that because creditor did not file a proof of claim on a prepetition contract matter the peculiar powers of the bankruptcy court had not been invoked
D: holding that creditor did not have actual knowledge of the bankruptcy filing where the debtor informed creditor of the possibility that a bankruptcy case would be filed
C.