With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". determine whether a Rule 68 offer has mooted the controversy is not well established. Courts in different jurisdictions have taken a variety of approaches, both with respect to the mechanics by which the court should determine whether the offer is greater than the value of the case (i.e., whether or not the court should conduct any fact finding), and also with respect to the implications of a Rule 68 offer which moots the case (i.e., whether judgment should be entered in favor of the plaintiff, or whether the defendant wins outright). There is a split of authority whether an offer of judgment which moots a case should result in the entry of judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of the Rule 68 offer, or result in the plaintiff losing outright. Compare, e.g., Rand, 926 F.2d at 598 (<HOLDING>), with Ambalu v. Rosenblatt, 194 F.R.D. 451,

A: holding that a plaintiff loses outright when he or she refuses to honor the defendants offer to satisfy the plaintiffs entire demand
B: holding that the ada plaintiff was unable to perform essential functions of job when the plaintiffs psychotherapist had told the employer that the plaintiff was unable to work in any position when the plaintiff did not disagree with that point and when the plaintiff in response to a request for admission conceded that she was no longer able to work
C: holding that if the breach of an entire contract is only partial the plaintiff can recover only such damages as he or she has sustained leaving prospective damages to a later suit in the event of further breaches
D: holding that a plaintiff can show that she is qualified by presenting credible evidence that she continued to possess the objective qualifications she held when she was hired
A.