With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (N.D.Cal. May 9, 2011), in support of their argument that they have not acted inconsistently with their right to arbitrate. (Compel Reply 1.) In TFT-LCD, the court held in an “extremely close” decision that, although the defendants had not made mention of their right to arbitrate until after a class was certified, defendants had not waived the right because defendants could not move to compel arbitration of the class members’ claims until after the class was certified. TFT-LCD, 2011 WL 1753784, at *4. The Court does not find the reasoning of TFT-LCD to be persuasive. It is true that Defendants likely could not have moved to compel arbitration of the Tower City class members’ claims until after the class was certified. See Saleh v. Titan Corp., 353 F.Supp.2d 1087, 1091 (S.D.Cal.2004) (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, Defendants could have asserted

A: holding that tolling applies to a subsequent class action when the prior denial of class certification was based solely on rule 23 deficiencies of the putative representative
B: holding that tolling applies to a subsequent class action when class certification was granted in a prior case
C: recognizing that in appropriate circumstances the court may limit the parties communications with putative class members prior to decision on conditional certification question in a  216b action
D: holding that putative class members are not parties to an action prior to class certification
D.