With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". upon a showing by the intervenor that he fulfills the requirements of Art. III.”). The first Benavidez prong can therefore be understood as a temporal extension of the case-or-controversy requirement, applied at the point where the intervenor is the lone remaining party. This requirement demands higher scrutiny where the original party’s claim was dismissed on the merits or for lack of jurisdiction, but the analysis is somewhat different where the original party was dismissed for a procedural reason, such as for failure to prosecute. In such cases, a claim joined by an intervenor may survive the dismissal of the original party if the court retains jurisdiction over the claim and the intervenor has standing to continue litigating it. See Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 585 F.3d at 1189 (<HOLDING>). There is no question that OneCap timely filed

A: holding that a default judgment was not void because the bankruptcy court that entered the judgment had proper jurisdiction over the party seeking relief
B: holding that the district court should not have entered a default judgment against an intervenor based on the original partys failure to appear
C: holding that despite failure to appear for trial default could not be entered without notice to defendant
D: holding that district courts order granting motion for default judgment was erroneous  because a default judgment cannot be entered until the amount of damages has been ascertained
B.