With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". important that Hecht receive adequate notice before being deprived of her individual right to sue. Cf. Mace v. Van Ru Credit Corp., 109 F.3d 338, 344-45 (7th Cir.1997) (“When individual class members are offered the right and opportunity to opt out of the class action, the statutory language [in Section 1692k(a)(2)(B), capping the unnamed class members’ damages] ‘without regard to a minimum individual recovery’ generally controls.”). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the district court’s dismissal of Hecht’s claim under the FDCPA, VACATE its dismissal of her claim under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn. Gen.Stat. § 42-110a et seq., and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. 1 . While the FDCPA explicitly .2d 293, 299 (E.D.N.Y.2005) (<HOLDING>); see also Bolin v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 231

A: holding that neither injunctive nor declaratory relief is available to private litigants under the fdcpa
B: holding that equitable relief is not available to an individual under this section of the fdcpa
C: holding that the eleventh amendment precludes an award of injunctive or declaratory relief that is not prospective in nature
D: holding that a prisoners transfer mooted claims for declaratory and injunctive relief
A.