With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". protected status under the ESA, the Marbled Murrelet “ha[d] standing to sue in its own right.” Id. at 1346 (citations omitted); see also Loggerhead Turtle v. County Council of Volusia County, Florida, 896 F.Supp. 1170, 1177 (M.D.Fla.1995) (same). On the other hand, in two reported cases in which the naming of an animal as a party was explicitly challenged, the courts, in thoughtful opinions, concluded that a protected animal did not have standing to bring suit. See Citizens to End Animal Suffering & Exploitation, Inc. v. New England Aquarium, 836 F.Supp. 45, 49-50 (D.Ma.1993) (granting defendants' motion to remove dolphins name from caption of case because they lacked standing to sue under the Marine Mammal Protection Act); Hawaiian Crow v. Lujan, 906 F.Supp. 549, 551-52 (D.Haw.1991) (<HOLDING>). In reaching this conclusion, these courts

A: holding that plaintiffs did not have standing because they did not sue the party with the clear ability to act
B: holding that an incidental beneficiary does not have standing to sue for breach of a contract
C: holding that employers have standing to sue
D: holding that hawaiian crow was not a person with standing to sue under  11 of esa
D.