Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
estoppel claim dismissed because Cornell fails to identify any promise any of the Individual Defendants made. I agree with the Individual Defendants. As I noted above, the only basis that exists for Cornell’s promissory estop pel claim is the sewage facility agreement and the surrounding promises. See supra Part IV.E. In the complaint, Cornell only alleges that the Borough made the promises regarding the dedication of the facility and the reimbursement of Cornell’s expenses. See Third Am. Compl. ¶¶ 27, 31, 33-34, 148. Cornell does not claim that any of the Individual Defendants made any of these or other promises. Accordingly, I will dismiss the promissory estoppel claim against the Individual Defendants. See Crouse v. Cyclops Industries, 560 Pa. 394, 745 A.2d 606, 610 (2000) . E. Immunity Defenses The Individual
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that objection must reasonably be expected to alert the trial court to the ground subsequently raised on appeal
B. holding that the first element of a promissory estoppel claim is the promisor made a promise that he should have reasonably expected to induce action emphasis added
C. recognizing that allegation of state action is a necessary element of a  1983 claim
D. holding that the trial court erred when it did not consider what the husband could have been reasonably expected to have earned  based upon the recent work history and other pertinent circumstances
E. holding that due process required a hearing so the putative father would have an opportunity to present evidence to show as a factual matter that he could not reasonably have complied with utahs statutory requirements or deadlines because he could not reasonably have expected his baby to be born in utah
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.