With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". its August 13, 2015 order and will grant Home’s motion for reconsideration as to Plaintiffs FCEUA claim. ECF No. 271 n.2. In the same Order, the Court denied Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration, explaining: In his motion, Plaintiff takes issue with the Court’s reversal of summary judgment as to his claims under [the UTPCPL]. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that Defendant Home’s withholding of the security deposit was taken against the improper thirty-day notice fee and, alternatively, that he had other losses that would satisfy the “ascertainable loss” requirement under the UTPCPL. Plaintiffs arguments fail, for two reasons. First, the security deposit question was already decided when the Court dismissed the security deposit claim from the case. See Jarzyna [II, 114 F.Supp.3d at 277] (<HOLDING>). Second, Plaintiff by his ascertainable loss

A: holding that a trustees interest in letter of credit proceeds acting as a security deposit is property of the estate
B: holding that although a financing statement may be used to assist in the interpretation of the security agreement the financing statement does not create a security interest and cannot extend a security interest beyond what has been unambiguously described in a security agreement
C: holding that plaintiffs security deposit was not improperly withheld when home applied the deposit amount to rent in arrears
D: holding that the trustee could not avoid a security interest under section 549 when that security interest was authorized by the bankruptcy court
C.