With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". this issue agree that moving for summary judgment qualifies as “otherwise defending]” for purposes of Rule 55(a) and precludes the entry of default from becoming effective. See Rashidi, 818 F.Supp. at 1356 (“[A] summary judgment motion [that] speaks to the merits of the case and demonstrates a concerted effort and an undeniable desire to contest the action is sufficient to fall within the ambit of ‘otherwise defend’ for purposes of Fed.R.Civ.P. 55.”); Lexington Fayette Cnty. Food and Bev. Ass’n v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty. Gov’t, 131 S.W.3d 745, 756-57 (Ky.2004) (finding that the defendant “otherwise defended” the action whether its motion “was considered a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment”); Klock v. Town of Cascade, 284 Mont. 167, 943 P.2d 1262, 1266 (1997) (<HOLDING>); Equable Ascent Fin. v. Christian, 196 Ohio

A: holding that trial court impliedly ruled on motion for continuance by granting motion for summary judgment when appellant filed motion for continuance two days before summary judgment hearing
B: holding that a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment precluded default judgment
C: holding that a motion for summary judgment constitutes otherwise defending under rule 55
D: holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that a motion for summary judgment was not opposed
C.