With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". they were part of the Reward Zone pre-enrollment process, the Reward Zone membership look-up process, or otherwise, the Court cannot tell if they would remain part of a more narrowly-defined class that excluded those processes. It is entirely possible that cashiers at Best Buy requested PII from Plaintiffs in a manner that violates the Act. If, however, this occurred because the cashier in question deviated from Best Buy’s corporate policies and procedures, maintenance of a class action would not be appropriate, and Plaintiffs would need to pursue their claims as individuals. See Rothman v. Gen. Nutrition Co., Inc., Case No. 11-CIV-03617, 2011 WL 6940490, at *5-6 (C.D.Cal. Nov. 17, 2011); Cortez v. Best Buy Stores, LP, No. 11-CIV-05053, 2012 WL 255345, at *6-7 (C.D.Cal. Jan. 25, 2012) (<HOLDING>). If the named Plaintiffs wish to represent a

A: holding that tolling applies to a subsequent class action when class certification was granted in a prior case
B: holding that putative class members are not parties to an action prior to class certification
C: holding that no subsequent class actions may benefit from tolling when class certification has been denied
D: holding districtwide class certification not appropriate where the claims were based on oral conversations in which store managers allegedly deviated from company policy
D.