With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". USA, Inc., 564 F.3d 1256, 1274-75 (11th Cir. 2009) (stating that “common questions will rarely, if ever, predominate [in] an unjust enrichment claim, the resolution of which turns on individualized facts” and concluding there was a commonality problem because employees who understood the commission policy “cannot claim injustice when the company follows its compensation policies as expected and understood”); Oshana v. Coca-Cola Co., 472 F.3d 506, 515 (7th Cir. 2006) (finding that there was not an identifiable and definite class for the plaintiffs’ claim that they were deceived about whether Diet Coke contained saccharin, since the class of all purchasers could include many people who were not deceived); In re Actiq Sales & Mktg. Practices Litig., 307 F.R.D. 150, 169-71 (E.D. Pa. 2015) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs respond that some courts have

A: holding that the court may only make a facial inquiry into the validity of the certification
B: holding that individualized factual determinations precluded finding that common issues predominate reversing the class certification order
C: holding that because the defendant has the right to litigate the issue of each class members consent the trial court did not improperly exercise its discretion in finding that these issues would predominate over common questions
D: holding that common issues of fact did not predominate because it was necessary to make an individualized inquiry into equitable circumstances
D.