With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Construed broadly, plaintiffs’ allegations that the VOA defendants, with intent to defraud, characterized the Gulati segment as a pro bono feature and a public service to the Indian-American community without disclosing the fact that Gulati paid for the segment, thereby inducing plaintiffs’ reliance and causing injury, are sufficient to plead common law fraud. Plaintiffs’ third cause of action therefore withstands the VOA defendants’ motion to dismiss. We remand to the district court to decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367. While we conclude that plaintiffs’ pleading of their state law fraud claim survives defendants’ motion to dismiss, we render no opinion as to the ultimate merits of this claim. See Bernheim, 79 F.3d at 321 (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks and citations

A: holding that the relevant inquiry is not whether the court has discretion to facilitate notice but whether this is an appropriate case in which to exercise discretion
B: holding that the issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims
C: recognizing that only a claimant is entitled to the secretarys assistance in the development of the facts pertinent to the claim the benefit of the doubt and the determination whether the claim is well grounded
D: holding that trial court may not consider whether plaintiff will ultimately prevail
B.