With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Robert James Demetriou appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his diversity action arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Kaplan v. City of N. Las Vegas, 323 F.3d 1226, 1229 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. had statutory authority to initiate nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings. See Cal. Civ.Code § 2924(a)(1) (a “trustee, mortgagee, or beneficiary, or any of their authorized agents” may initiate the foreclosure process); see also Jenkins v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 216 Cal.App.4th 497, 156 Cal.Rptr.3d 912, 928 (2013) (<HOLDING>); Gomes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 192

A: holding that a properly conducted nonjudicial foreclosure sale quiets title in the purchaser
B: holding that trial court must make entry of default prior to entry of default judgment and court may not make entry of default when there is no default in law or in fact
C: holding that plan servicer which provided 401k plan a menu of investment options was not a fiduciary because parties contract required servicer to give the plan notice of and opportunity to reject any changes to the menu
D: holding that a loan servicer as agent for the beneficiary may record a notice of default and initiate nonjudicial foreclosure
D.