With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". In re Mendiola, 99 B.R. at 867. With no claims bar date, a proof of claim cannot be untimely, and section 523(a)(3)(A) cannot apply. More controversial is what action a bankruptcy court should take when a debtor has failed to schedule a creditor in a no-asset chapter 7 case. In re Mendiola represents one position. It held that reopening the case serves no purpose; the dischargeability of all claims is already fixed. If the court has set no claims bar date, section 523(a)(3)(A) cannot make claims nondischargeable. Further, because under Rule 4007(b) a court cannot reset the time to file a section 523(c)(1) complaint, reopening the case cannot change the nondischargeability of claims under section 523(a)(3)(B). In re Mendiola, 99 B.R. at 868 n.6. Thus, cases in this line hold that 1986) (<HOLDING>). Of the cases in this line, only one that we

A: holding creditors actual notice of chapter 7 case in ample time to prepare and timely file the necessary request for determination of dischargeability bars them from challenging the dischargeability of their claim 15 months after bar date
B: holding that a creditor added after the court reopens a case must be accorded a reasonable period of time within which to object to the dischargeability of the debt owed it under 523a2 4 and 6
C: holding that a creditor objecting to the dischargeability of a debt under  523a must prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence
D: holding that the party challenging the dischargeability of a debt bears the burden of proving the debt nondischargeable by a preponderance of the evidence
B.