Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
has held on more than one occasion, not inconsistent with Magnolia, that the language in section 85.321’s predecessor (section 13 of article 6049c) does, in fact, create a private cause of action. Turnbow v. Lamb, 95 F.2d 29, 31 (5th Cir.1938) (“Article 6049c, section 13, Vernon’s Civil Stat. Texas, expressly recognizes and preserves to an injured party his cause of action for damages ‘or other relief against a violator of the oil production laws.”); see Sun Oil Co. v. Martin, 330 F.2d 5, 5 (5th Cir.1964) (adopting the lower court’s reasoning in Sun Oil Co. v. Martin, 218 F.Supp. 618, 621-22 (S.D.Tex.1963) (explaining that a violation under section 13 of article 6049c “may give rise to an action for damages”)); see also Ivey v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 36 F.Supp. 811, 816 (S.D.Tex.1941) . Although section 85.321 and section 13 of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding in accord with fifth circuit law that a plaintiff does not have standing to sue pursuant to section 13 of article 6049c if no railroad commission regulation or state law violation occurred
B. recognizing that while in a diversity case a federal court may not address the plaintiffs claim unless the plaintiff has standing to sue under state law the plaintiff must also meet article iii standing requirements
C. holding that employers have standing to sue
D. holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue
E. holding that an incidental beneficiary does not have standing to sue for breach of a contract
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.