With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. at 2551. To decide whether commonality is satisfied, the Court must identify the theories of liability upon which plaintiff proceeds. Although it is not entirely clear from plaintiffs’ briefing, the Court determines they propose two theories of liability. The first theory is that EZ Seed does not grow grass at all and thus is worthless. (Pls.’ Reply at 1; see also id. at 11 (“[G]rass seed that does not grow is worthless.”)). The second theory is that “EZ Seed was mislabeled because the statement that it grows ’50% Thicker With Half the Water’ is both false and misleading.” (Id. at 4). A common question with respect to the first theory of liability is 6559, at *7 (N.D.Cal. May 30, 2014), class decertified in part, 2014 WL 5794873 (N.D.Cal. Nov. 6, 2014) (<HOLDING>). C. Typicality Rule 23(a)(3) requires “the

A: holding that the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged injury under the ucl fal and clra by asserting that the product they received was worth less than what they paid for it owing to defendants misleading labels
B: holding california ucl fal and clra claims depend on the common question of whether the labels at issue are unlawful unfair deceptive or misleading to reasonable consumers
C: holding that a deceptive practice consists of a material representation or omission that is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances
D: holding that actual reliance is not required to establish injury under nc gen stat  5863151 2001 which governs the unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts or practices in the business of insurance
B.