Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
she accordingly lacks the “irreducible constitutional minimum of standing,” which is “an injury in fact that is ... actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Drutis, 499 F.3d at 611 (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Majority correctly observes that “[o]ur decision in Horvath did not revolve around whether the plaintiff suffered a financial loss.” (Majority Op. at 416.) It did, however, turn on the question of whether the plaintiff had demonstrated an individual loss, i.e., an actual injury to that particular plaintiff. That showing is required when a plaintiff is seeking individual relief under ERISA. See In re Unisys Sav. Plan Litig., 173 F.3d 145, 159 (3d Cir.1999) . Yet the Majority appears to conclude, as one
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that claims for equitable relief under  502a3 are only available when a plaintiff has no other relief under erisa
B. holding that equitable relief is not available to an individual under this section of the fdcpa
C. holding that a plaintiff seeking individual relief under erisa  502a3 under a breach of fiduciary duty theory did not have a cause of action when the alleged breach of fiduciary duty was a failure to distribute benefits in accordance with the plan
D. holding that a civil rights plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under fmla against individual individual is not employer subject to liability under the act
E. holding that a plaintiff seeking individual relief under erisa  502a3 in contrast to  502a2 which allows relief on behalf of a plan is required to prove an individual loss
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.