With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Basch v. Ground Round, Inc., 139 F.3d 6, 11 (1st Cir.1998) (“Plaintiffs may not stack one class action on top of another and continue to toll the statute of limitations indefinitely.”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 119 S.Ct. 165, 142 L.Ed.2d 135 (1998); Griffin v. Singletary, 17 F.3d 356, 359 (11th Cir.1994) (“Plaintiffs may not piggyback one class action onto another and thus toll the statute of limitations indefinitely.”); Andrews v. Orr, 851 F.2d 146, 149 (6th Cir.1988) (“The courts of appeals that have dealt with the issue appear to be in unanimous agreement that the pendency of a previously filed class action does not toll the limitations period for additional class actions by putative members of the original asserted class.”); Robbin v. Fluor Corp., 835 F.2d 213, 214 (9th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); Korwek v. Hunt, 827 F.2d 874, 879 (2d

A: holding class action to be superior adjudication method where individual class members had no interest in controlling prosecution of individual actions
B: holding that a class action tolls the statute of limitations only for subsequent individual actions not for subsequent class actions
C: holding that tolling applies to a subsequent class action when class certification was granted in a prior case
D: recognizing that american pipe established that commencement of a class action tolls the applicable statute of limitations as to all members of the class
B.