Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
13-3. Defendant contends that the 2010-2011 IEP does not preclude G.M. from earning a Regents diploma in the future, but that earning Carnegie credits in her mainstream classes is currently outside G.M.’s ability. See Dkt. No. 15 at 24. Under the IDEA, a student with a disability is eligible to earn a high school diploma until his or her twenty-first birthday. See 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1)(A); 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 100.9(e). At the time this action was brought, G.M. was fifteen years old, thus Defendant’s contention that she still has ample time to earn a Regents diploma is correct. Given G.M.’s significant deficits, however, Defendant’s decision that G.M. would not receive Carnegie credit for her course work for 2010-2011 does not amount to a violation of the IDEA. See J.S., 586 F.Supp.2d at 86 . The record shows that G.M. struggled
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the districts decision that the plaintiff could only pursue an iep diploma was reasonably calculated to benefit the plaintiff and was in conformity with the requirements of the idea
B. holding that a plaintiff must comply with the notice of claim requirements in order to maintain an action against a government employee even if the plaintiff claims that the employee acted with fraud or malice
C. holding that courts must construe the complaint liberally in favor of the plaintiff by  giving the plaintiff the benefit of all the inferences that can be reasonably drawn from the pleaded facts
D. holding that the plaintiff could bring an action for negligent misrepresentation although the plaintiff could not sue on the contract because the contract was void
E. holding that the burden is on the plaintiff
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.