With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Richard Maddox, and Karen Alexan-drou appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the County of Sacramento and several employees of the County’s District Attorney’s (DA) office. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Maddox and Alexandrou lack standing for their employment claims because their injuries are not “fairly traceable” to the actions of any named defendant. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). While Maddox and Alexandrou were reassigned in order to facilitate a better working relationship with the DA’s office, none of the named defendants had authority over employment decisions within the Code Enforcement Division. See Pritikin v. Dep’t. of Energy, 254 F.3d 791, 798 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Contrary to the Vos’ submission, the district

A: holding that the plaintiffs did not have standing because they may not rely on the expense of credit monitoring and other preventative measures for standing
B: holding that plaintiffs did not have standing because they did not sue the party with the clear ability to act
C: holding that employers have standing to sue
D: holding that a minor does not have standing to sue because he is not the biological child of the deceased
B.