With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". In re American Express Co. Shareholder Litig., 39 F.3d 395, 400 (2d Cir.1994) (citing Sperber v. Boesky, 849 F.2d 60, 64-65 (2d Cir.1988)). See also Abrahams v. Young & Rubicam, 79 F.3d at 238 (“Abraham’s failure to establish a RICO claim stems from the fact that he was not the ‘target of the racketeering enterprise.’ ”) (citations omitted). Moreover, courts have repeatedly refused to find standing under RICO where the harm caused to the plaintiff is the result of the exposure of the alleged racketeering activity, rather than from the predicate acts underlying the scheme itself. See, e.g., Abrahams v. Young & Rubicam, 79 F.3d at 239 (finding failure to state a claim where plaintiff was injured only “by fallout from the scheme’s exposure”); American Express Co., 39 F.3d at 400 (<HOLDING>). See also In re Teledyne Defense. Contracting

A: holding that dismissal is proper where any losses to american express were caused only because the scheme itself was exposed and thus failed
B: holding that where the relevant facts were undisputed the only question for review was whether there was any evidence or reason to support a dismissal for want of prosecution
C: holding that the proper ground for dismissal of a  1983 action in which the plaintiff has failed to establish state action is lack of jurisdiction
D: holding that denial of remand was proper where plaintiff failed to raise the proper objection
A.