With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". plaintiffs cannot dispute that this case presents manageability issues, but Briseno declined to adopt an administrative feasibility prerequisite and affirmed “the well-settled presumption that courts should not refuse to certify a class merely on the basis of manageability concerns.” Briseno, 844 F.3d at 1128. While administrative feasibility is not a prerequisite to class certification, manageability is still a factor to be considered in a court’s superiority analysis. “Manageability concerns must be weighed against the alternatives and will rarely, if ever, be sufficient to prevent certification of a class.” Trosper v. Styker Corp., No. 13-cv-00607-LHK, 2015 WL 5915360 at *17, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117453 at *17 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Briseno, 844 F.3d at 1128 (<HOLDING>). FAS raised the same arguments two years ago

A: holding that an adjudication on summary judgment is an adjudication on the merits
B: holding that to maintain a class action the existence of the class must be pleaded and the limits of the class must be defined with some specificity
C: holding class action to be superior adjudication method where individual class members had no interest in controlling prosecution of individual actions
D: holding courts must balance the benefits of class adjudication against its costs
D.