With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Sparks, claims which are not addressed by the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss other than as relates to the retroactivity issue; (2) adding a correctly pleaded Section 1981 claim; (3) properly describing a conspiracy between the two individual defendants, in direct contravention to the Defendants’ claims that said conspiracy was improperly alleged as having been between the corporation and its employees; (4) alleging, as part of the aforementioned claim, a violation of specific fundamental rights of each Plaintiff, including First, Fourth, and Thirteenth Amendment rights, violations fully contemplated by Section 1985(3) despite the Defendants’ misleading interpretation of the statute otherwise. See Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 103, 91 S.Ct. 1790, 1798, 29 L.Ed.2d 338 (1971) (<HOLDING>); and, finally (5) replacing the erroneously

A: recognizing cause of action
B: holding a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the constitution and laws of the united states to state a claim under  1983
C: recognizing a cause of action for conspiracy to deprive a class of persons of their fundamental rights under the laws of the united states
D: recognizing the cause of action
C.