With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". claiming breach.” Miller-Davis Co v Ahrens Const Co, 495 Mich 161, 178; 848 NW2d 95 (2014) (emphasis added). In this case, the board of trustees asserts no damages to itself as the gover real party in interest to assert breach-of-contract claims regarding the CBAs. Id.; MCR 2.201(B). The board of trustees lacked standing because it was not the proper party to assert the breach-of-contract claims that the retirees might have regarding modification of the pertinent CBAs affecting the retirees’ benefits. Lansing Sch Ed Ass’n, 487 Mich at 355-356. The board of trustees presented two arguments below regarding standing that we find without merit. First, the board suggested that it had standing under MCR 2.605 because it sought declaratory relief. See Lansing Sch Ed Ass’n, 487 Mich at 372 (<HOLDING>). MCR 2.605(A)(1) provides: “In a case of

A: holding that persons not parties to a contract did not have standing to seek declaratory judgment on contracts validity
B: holding that where the question to be resolved in the declaratory judgment action will be decided in a pending action it is inappropriate to grant a declaratory judgment
C: holding that whenever a litigant meets the requirements of mcr 2605 it is sufficient to establish standing to seek a declaratory judgment
D: holding that the injured party had standing to appeal the declaratory judgment in favor of the insurance company and noting that it was decisive to the holding that dairyland named the injured appellants in its declaratory judgment action
C.