With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". was to obtain injunctive relief, not whether plaintiffs will ultimately prevail or the possible size of the damage award. See id. at 1234-35. The Court concludes that under the specific facts and circumstances of this case, Plaintiff has failed to show that her primary goal in bringing this action was to obtain injunc-tive relief. Although the prayer for relief in the Complaint “prays that Defendant be permanently enjoined from marketing Pantene Pro-V as products able to strengthen hair,” the prayer for relief also repeatedly requests damages, including punitive damages. (Compl. at 13-14.) The facts of this case are wholly unlike the facts of cases in which certification under Rule 23(b)(2) has been permitted despite the fact that damages were also sought. Cf. Dukes, 474 F.3d at 1235 (<HOLDING>); Molski, 318 F.3d at 950 (concluding that

A: holding that logic supports the conclusion that the suit by current and former employees seeking to end employers practice of gender discrimination would be primarily motivated by the desire to protect those class members that are suffering as they once did
B: holding that it is error to certify class when named class representatives are not members of the class they purport to represent
C: holding that the filing of a class action by a class representative without standing tolls the period of limitations with regard to all asserted members of the class and that the amendment of the complaint by the addition of a class member with standing relates back to the original complaint
D: holding that putative class members are not parties to an action prior to class certification
A.