With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 471-72 (2008). Rubio has alleged a loss of money or property. When Capital One increased the APR from 6.99% to 15.9%, it gave Rubio a choice either to close the account and pay off the outstanding balance, or to keep the account open and accept the increased APR. Rubio does not allege which choice she accepted, though either would cause a loss of money or property. If she closed the account, she would have suffered a monetary loss by losing the credit that Capital One extended. White v. Trans Union, LLC, 462 F.Supp.2d 1079, 1084 (C.D.Cal.2006) (ruling that damage to credit was loss of money or property). If she kept her account open, she would have accepted a higher APR and thus also lost money. See Troyk v. Farmers Group, Inc., 171 Cal.App.4th 1305, 90 Cal.Rptr.3d 589, 624-25 (2009) (<HOLDING>). This “actual economic injury” is enough to

A: holding that payment of extra money as a result of the defendants action was sufficient for standing
B: recognizing that an action will lie for conversion of money when its identification is possible and there is an obligation to deliver the specific money in question or otherwise particularly treat the specific money
C: holding that the fourth amendment does not mandate the payment of money by the united states
D: holding that action for lien seeks money damages because its goal is to seize or attach money in the hands of the government as compensation
A.