Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
a moving party may succeed on summary judgment. See id. In addition, the nonmoving party may not rely solely on allegations or conclusory statements. See Greene v. Dalton, 164 F.3d 671, 675 (D.C.Cir.1999); Harding v. Gray, 9 F.3d 150, 154 (D.C.Cir.1993). Rather, t d injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision of this court. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130 (1992); Tozzi v. U.S. Dep’t of Health and Human Servs., 271 F.3d 301 (D.C.Cir.2001) (recognizing that upgrade classification change from “reasonably anticipated” to “known” carcinogen caused some economic injury that could be redressed by reversing the classification). An organization has standing only if it meets a separate three-prong test. See Truckers United for Safety v. Mead, 251 F.3d 183 (D.C.Cir.2001) . Such standing exists where the organization’s
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue
B. holding that employers have standing to sue
C. holding the homeowners association had standing to sue under the theory of promissory estoppel
D. holding that a motor carriers association has standing to sue on behalf of its members for department of transportations alleged abuses of agency authority
E. holding noncustodial father did not have standing to sue on his daughters behalf
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.