With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". alleges that several days after the accident, he submitted an Amtrak Injury/Illness Report to Amtrak’s New York office, setting forth his full address. Amtrak disputes this. Peters did not produce this document until his rule 60(b) motion for relief from the order and did not explain why the document was not produced earlier. 2 . While the passenger list Amtrak provided did not include Peters’ zip code, the record shows that class counsel added a zip code, albeit an incorrect one. 3 . This is not to say that Peters should be without a remedy. Rather, we simply believe that to the extent Peters’ claim is actionable, his redress, if any, should come from those responsible for causing his harm. See, e.g., Zimmer Paper Prods., Inc. v. Berger & Montague P.C., 758 F.2d 86, 93-94 (3d Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 902, 106 S.Ct. 228, 88

A: holding that a class plaintiff who seeks to assert statutory rights to protect a class of which he is a member is not asserting rights antagonistic to any members of that class
B: holding that no class member may opt out of a rule 23b1 class action
C: recognizing a narrow class of cases in which the termination of the class representatives claim for relief does not moot the claims of the class members
D: recognizing cause of action by class member against class counsel for negligence in providing notice
D.