Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
object to the discharge-ability of the debt, and it became nondischargeable under section 523(a)(3)(B). Smith replied that, when a creditor is added to a petition, the creditor then has a “reasonable time” to object to dischargeability and that, if he or she does not, the debt is discharged. He noted that “some courts” have held that 60 days is a reasonable time. The court granted Smith’s motion to dismiss on March 8, 2005, and plaintiffs timely appealed. We hold that the trial court erred in granting Smith’s motion. It misinterpreted the applicable bankruptcy law. The Bankruptcy Code and the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure provide that amendments to schedules do not alter the deadlines for filing bankruptcy court complaints to determine the dischargeability of fra D.N.J. 2000) . We find persuasive In re Strano’s careful
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over  1983 claims
B. holding that a proceeding that by its nature could arise only in the context of a bankruptcy case is a core matter subject to the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court
C. holding that although the bankruptcy court is the preferred forum because of its greater expertise state courts have concurrent jurisdiction
D. holding that federal jurisdiction over rico claims is concurrent and not exclusive
E. holding that the bankruptcy courts as compared to state courts have exclusive jurisdiction to determine issues of dischargeability under the bankruptcy code
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.