With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". accounts in connection with enrollment in an MWI membership program.” In re Vertrue, 712 F.Supp.2d at 708. After an appeal, the district court ultimately certified a class of plaintiffs described as "residents of Ohio who ... called a toll free number marketed by [defendants] and purchased any Tae-Bo product, and subsequently [incurred unauthorized charges].” Id. One of the defendants entered into a settlement with the plaintiffs and, as a result, the claims against MWI were dismissed. The final judgment in the case was entered on December 11, 2008. As noted by the district court, the denial of class certification in Ritt is irrelevant to resolution of the issues presented in this appeal and does not provide a date from which the statute of limita d 1139, 1149 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc) (<HOLDING>); cf. Great Plains Trust Co. v. Union Pacific

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 no subsequent class actions may benefit from tolling when class certification has been denied
C: holding that putative class members are not parties to an action prior to class certification
D: holding that tolling applies to a subsequent class action when class certification was granted in a prior case
D.