With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". are satisfied. 3. Class Period Defendants seek a hearing to consider the range of stock prices over the proposed Class Period and possible reasons that may have contributed to the decline in Herley’s stock prices. In addition, Defendants seek to have the Court consider evidence concerning when Defendants first knew or should have known about the non-performing equipment claims that led to the April 26, 1994 press release. In effect, Defendants want the Court to make a decision on the merits during its consideration of the pending motion. To determine these issues at this time is inappropriate. Preliminary assessment on the merits should be deferred until later in the proceedings. See Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 177-78, 94 S.Ct. 2140, 2152-53, 40 L.Ed.2d 732 (1974) (<HOLDING>); Sherin v. Gould, 115 F.R.D. 171, 174-75

A: holding that the court has no authority to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the merits of an action to determine whether it may be maintained as a class action
B: holding that the right of all putative members of a proposed class in an action filed pursuant to kansass class action rule of civil procedure to file a separate action is preserved pending the determination of whether the initial case shall be maintained as a class action
C: holding the court was not required to decide the issue of whether the district court properly certified a rule 23b2 class because the court already concluded that the district court appropriately certified the class under rule 23b3 citing authority for the proposition that a court need only find that a class action may be maintained under any of the three subdivisions
D: holding that where the action was filed as a class action and a consent decree was entered into entry of the consent decree was sufficient certification of the action as a class action under rule 23
A.