With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the reasons discussed above, we will dismiss both appeals for lack of jurisdiction. 1 . Additionally, Appellees emphasize that the United States Courts of Appeals for the Sixth and Ninth Circuits have also concluded that plaintiffs may not appeal a dismissal for lack of prosecution where the plaintiffs caused that dismissal in order to appeal. See Huey v. Teledyne, Inc., 608 F.2d 1234, 1236 (9th Cir.1979) (concluding that reviewing the denial of class-action certification after plaintiff's action was dismissed for failure to prosecute would violate the spirit of Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 98 S.Ct. 2454, 57 L.Ed.2d 351 (1978), in which the Court held that a decertification order was not an appealable final order); Hughley v. Eaton Corp., 572 F.2d 556, 557 (6th Cir.1978) (<HOLDING>). We read these cases as consistent with

A: holding that because no class was certified at the time tender rendered moot haymans claims dismissal of the entire suit was warranted
B: holding that the plaintiffs failure to meet any one of the elements requires dismissal of claim
C: holding that dismissal for failure to prosecute rendered moot any prior ruling of the district court
D: recognizing that propriety of dismissal without warning for failure to prosecute although abuse of discretion and grounds for appeal was not basis for overturning denial of motion under rule 60b to set aside dismissal
C.