With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". EDP Med. Computer Sys. Inc. v. United States, 480 F.3d 621, 624 (2d Cir.2007). Instead, she invokes the Due Process Clause of the Constitution in an attempt to free herself of res judicata and the binding elements of the settlement. Vargas argues that the Ramirez judgment should not preclude her from prosecuting this suit because, in her view, the class representatives were conflicted, and class counsel’s services and the notice provided to settlement class members were inadequate. See Wolfert ex rel. Estate of Wolfert v. Transamerica Home First, Inc., 489 F.3d 165, 171 (2d Cir.2006) (“[A]n absent party denied [adequate] representation [can] collaterally attack [a] class action judgment.”); Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797, 811-12, 105 S.Ct. 2965, 86 L.Ed.2d 628 (1985) (<HOLDING>). Vargas argues that class counsel in Ramirez

A: holding a claim for money damages is an adequate remedy at law and so it does not provide a sufficient basis for injunctive relief notwithstanding the possibility that a money judgment will be uncollectible
B: holding that absent plaintiffs were not bound by a rule 23blb2 class action for money damages because the original class action court did not have personal jurisdiction over the plaintiffs and did not provide them with an optout right
C: holding that absent plaintiffs were not bound by a rule 23b1  b2 class action for money damages because the original class action court did not have personal jurisdiction over the plaintiffs and did not provide them with an optout right
D: holding that a class action judgment awarding money damages will not bind an absent plaintiff without adequate notice
D.