With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the Engle class. As in this case, proving class membership often hinges on the contested issue of whether the plaintiff smoked cigarettes because of addiction or for some other reason (like the reasons of stress relief, enjoyment of cigarettes, and weight control argued below). Once class membership is established, individual plaintiffs use the Phase I findings to prove the conduct elements of the six causes of action this Court upheld in Engle-, however, for the strict liability and negligence claims at issue here, they must then prove individual causation and damages.[ ] If an individual plaintiff receives a favorable verdict, it is then subject to appellate review. Therefore, the Engle defendants receive the same process as any civil defendant. See Waggoner, 835 F.Supp.2d at 1273-74 (<HOLDING>). Id. at 432 (emphasis added). Though the Court

A: holding that a prima facie case is subject to independent review
B: holding that because the plaintiff was not disabled for the purposes of the ada this court need not to address the other elements of the prima facie case
C: recognizing that giving the phase i findings res judicata effect does not arbitrarily deprive the engle defendants of their property because to gain the benefit of these findings individual plaintiffs must first prove class membership and then after clearing that hurdle must prove the remaining elements of a prima facie case all of which is subject to judicial review
D: holding that the trial courts putting its findings on the record at the conclusion of the states case was sufficient to satisfy  152538 because that section does not specifically limit the time within which the court must state the findings
C.