Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Inc., 124, F.2d 1224 (6th Cir.1984), the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction was never addressed. Accordingly, Triax has no precedential effect. Sprint Commc’ns Co., L.P. v. APCC Servs., Inc., 554 U.S. 269, 312, 128 S.Ct. 2531, 171 L.Ed.2d 424 (2008). In the case at bar, the district court was not given sufficient opportunity to address the motion to intervene prior to the filing of the notice of appeal. Once such notice was filed, the district court was without jurisdiction to address the motion. Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying Lobasso’s motion to intervene. VII. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s order dismissing Taylor’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. In addition, we affirm the denial of Lobasso’s 54 (11th Cir.2001) . 3 . Taylor contends that there is a
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that article iii standing is necessary for intervention
B. 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
C. holding a plaintiff had standing to bring a state law disgorgement claim even though her ultimate distributions were not diminished by the breach of fiduciary duty
D. holding that plaintiff lacked article iii standing when the alleged breach of fiduciary duty if anything increased his retirement distributions
E. holding that article iii standing is not a prerequisite to intervention
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.