With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Amended Complaint, however, the Seeligs were compelled, for personal reasons, to withdraw as class representatives and from the litigation, in general. 2 . In their Reply Memorandum, Plaintiffs make clear that the area of contamination is a single, commingled groundwater plume that allegedly was caused by Defendants' combined volatile organic compound ("VOC”) spills. Therefore, throughout the remainder of this Opinion & Order, the Court will refer to the area of contamination underlying the proposed subclass (a) members' properties as the "commingled groundwater plume” or "commingled plume." 3 . The following facts are taken from Plaintiffs's Amended Complaint and are assumed true for purposes of deciding this Motion. Mayo v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 148 F.R.D. 576, 579-80 (S.D.Ohio 1993) (<HOLDING>). 4 . According to the Ohio EPA, "Urbana is

A: holding that the court need not accept as true  unwarranted factual inferences
B: holding that for purposes of a class certification motion the court must accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint and may draw reasonable inferences therefrom
C: recognizing the courts obligation to assume all factual allegations to be true and to draw all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs favor
D: holding that courts must draw all justifiable inferences in the nonmoving partys favor and accept the nonmoving partys evidence as true
B.