With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". preclude subsequent litigation). The court concluded: Because Coan has not taken any steps to permit the court to safeguard the interests of others or the court’s proceedings under the circumstances, ... she has failed to represent adequately the interest of other plan participants and has therefore not properly proceeded in a representative capacity as required by section 502(a)(2). Id. at 262. Coan has received mixed reviews both before and after LaRue. Compare Abbott v. Lockheed Martin Corp., No. 06-cv-0701-MJR, 2010 WL 547172, at *4 (S.D.Ill. Feb. 10, 2010) (refusing to permit case to proceed absent procedural safeguards because of “antagonistic and irreconcilable” interests and a concern for redundant suits), and Fish v. Greatbanc Trust Co., 667 F.Supp.2d 949, 952 (N.D.Ill.2009) (<HOLDING>), with Blankenship v. Chamberlain, 695

A: holding that putative class members are not parties to an action prior to class certification
B: holding that tolling applies to a subsequent class action when class certification was granted in a prior case
C: holding on motion to proceed without class certification that some procedural safeguards were required
D: holding that district court has discretion under appropriate circumstances to rule on summary judgment motion before addressing pending class certification motion
C.