With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Milne, 970 F.2d at 570; Finally, in the event the carrier prevails before the ICC, prejudgment interest will be available. See Milne, 970 F.2d at 570; Delta Traffic Serv., Inc. v. Appco Paper & Plastics Corp., 931 F.2d 5, 7 (2d Cir.1991). B. Prima Facie Showing of Unreasonableness Before the issue of rate unreasonableness can be referred to the ICC, the party ch ant met burden of showing unreasonableness of rate sought by showing carrier’s original rates were similar to those of competing carriers); Bur-Cold Express, Inc. v. Parker Hannifin Corp., 808 F.Supp. 553, 558 (S.D.Tex.1992) (observing that documents referring to rates charged by other carriers supported defendant’s position that filed tariff rate was in fact unreasonable); Covey v. Conagra, 788 F.Supp. 1160, 1164 (D.Colo.1992) (<HOLDING>). Shepard’s has provided evidence and an

A: holding eighty percent increase in demanded rates and showing that original rates were competitive with other carriers was prima facie unreasonable
B: holding that a plaintiffs prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts is reviewed de novo
C: recognizing initial burden of presenting prima facie evidence that jury waiver was knowingly and voluntarily made is on party seeking to enforce provision
D: holding prima facie showing of unreasonableness made by presenting evidence that tariff rates in effect at time of shipments were well above rates paid to other carriers for same service
D.