With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that the creditor had received official notice of the bankruptcy case and the scheduled meeting of creditors. Id. We rejected the creditor’s constitutional challenge, holding that “[w]hen the holder of a large, unsecured claim [in bankruptcy] ... receives any notice from the bankruptcy court that its debtor has initiated bankruptcy proceedings, it is under constructive or inquiry notice that its claim may be affected, and it ignores the proceedings to which the notice refers at its peril.” Id. at 1123. We added that “[i]f [the creditor] had made any inquiry following receipt of the notice, it would have discovered that it needed to act to protect its interest.” Id.; see also Espinosa v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc., 545 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir.), amended by 553 F.3d 1193 (2008) (<HOLDING>). Gregory controls here. The Joyes filed their

A: holding that  2000ccbl reflects freeexercise jurisprudence and is consistent with existing equal protection and establishment clause caselaw
B: holding that more than notice to a defendant is required
C: holding that gregory is entirely consistent with mullane and the more than a half century of due process caselaw that follows it
D: holding that court cannot consistent with due process set aside judgment of dismissal and render a personal judgment against defendant without notice
C.