With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Craddock to summary judgments "under limited circumstances where a pro se nonmovant appeared in person but mistakenly did not respond in writing to a matter-of-law summary judgment motion.” 326 S.W.3d at 345. Thus, in analyzing whether the pro se litigant was entitled to a new trial based on the equitable principles established in Carpenter and Wheeler, the Court applied the Craddock test, including its second element inquiring whether the defendant established a meritorious defense. Id. at 346-47. However, the Texas Supreme Court subsequently clarified in Marino that Wheeler did not apply the Craddock test; rather, it applied the two-pronged test from Carpenter for determining whether a trial court should allow a late-filed summary judgment response. See Marino, 355 S.W.3d at 633 (<HOLDING>). Therefore, we likewise apply the two-prong

A: holding that trial court may allow latefiled summary judgment response when party shows good cause and no undue prejudice citing wheeler
B: holding that trial court may not grant summary judgment by default  when the movants summary judgment proof is legally insufficient
C: holding that a trial court may enter summary judgment for a nonmoving party under appropriate circumstances
D: holding that a plaintiff may not raise a new legal claim in response to summary judgment
A.