Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to bring an action “to enjoin any act or practice which violates any provision of’ subchapter I of ERISA or the terms of a plan. If, as plaintiff alleges, defendants engaged in acts or practices which violated ERISA and the terms of the plan, she may be entitled to obtain an injunction to prevent defendants from continuing to engage in such acts and practices even if plaintiff is also entitled to benefits under § 1132(a)(1)(B). Nothing in Varity Corp. or other cases cited by defendants appears to limit actions under § 1132(a)(3)(A) — as opposed to actions under § 1132(a)(3)(B) — to cases in which relief under § 1132(a)(1)(B) is unavailable. See Keir v. UnumProvident Corp., No. 02 CIV. 8781(DLC), 2003 WL 2004422, at *1-2, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7020, at *1-3 (S.D.N.Y. April 29, 2003) . Indeed, I see no reason why a plaintiff could
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that plaintiffs may bring action to enjoin acts and practices that violate erisa pursuant to  1132a3a and that such an action is different than a claim for benefits pursuant to  1132a1b
B. holding that an action brought pursuant to  1983 cannot lie against federal officers
C. holding that erisa does not permit a plaintiff to assert an independent federal common law cause of action such as unjust enrichment to enforce the terms of an erisa plan thus to the extent plaintiffs third cause of action for unjust enrichment is brought pursuant to a federal common law right it must be dismissed
D. holding that prevailing party to contract dispute may recover attorneys fees either pursuant to contract or pursuant to statute
E. recognizing that exhaustion of state administrative remedies is not required as a prerequisite to bringing an action pursuant to  1983
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.