With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". UCL claim on behalf of Kyler under California’s survivorship statute if Kyler was able to bring the suit on his own behalf prior to his death. See Lintz v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 13-CV-01757, 2013 WL 5423873, at *9 (Sept. 27, 2013) (“[A] case of action for or against a person is hot lost by reason of the person’s death, but survives subject to the applicable limitations period.... Thus, the correct inquiry is not whether it was impossible for Plaintiff to bring suit, but whether it was impossible for [the decedent] or his successor in interest to bring suit.”). Thus, RCHSD’s cases discussing representative class standing and assignment-based rights to bring claims under the UCL are inapplicable. See Arias v. Super. Ct. 46 Cal.4th 969, 977-80, 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 588, 209 P.3d 923 (2009) (<HOLDING>); see also In re WellPoint, Inc. v.

A: holding that plaintiffs could only pursue ucl claims via assignment if they satisfied class action requirements
B: holding that a private party could pursue a representative action on behalf of others under the ucl only if the party met the requirements for a class action
C: holding that in class action the claim or defense of the representative party must be typical of the claim or defense of each member of the class
D: holding that a district of columbia consumer protection statute that authorized representative actions and did not reference class action requirements or mandate class certification was a separate and distinct procedural vehicle from a class action and thus did not constitute a class action under cafa
B.