With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". from any inbound callers to the phone lines that used non-mandatory messages. Moreover, ECMC has not submitted other persuasive evidence of express consent or “actual knowledge of recording during the Class Period followed by additional calls.” See NEI Contracting & Eng’g, Inc. v. Hanson Aggregates, Inc. (“NEI Contracting II"), No. 12-cv-01685-BAS(JLB), 2015 WL 4923510, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2015). The Court will therefore not presume that the need to resolve issues related to consent -will defeat the predominance requirement. See id. Accordingly, under these circumstances, the Court finds there is a minimal likelihood that establishing liability will require a series of individualized inquiries. See Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC, 617 F.3d 1168, 1173 (9th Cir. 2010) (<HOLDING>). ECMC is skeptical of the sufficiency of the

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 putative class members are not parties to an action prior to class certification
C: holding that a putative class action satisfied predominance because the allegations were susceptible to proof by generalized evidence
D: holding that the right of all putative members of a proposed class in an action filed pursuant to kansass class action rule of civil procedure to file a separate action is preserved pending the determination of whether the initial case shall be maintained as a class action
C.