With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (11th Cir. 1996). 107 . Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). 108 . 7AA Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1779 (3d ed.2005). 109 . Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)(D). 110 . See, e.g., Andrews, 95 F.3d at 1024-25; Cas-taño, 84 F.3d at 741-44. 111 . See, e.g., In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 288 F.3d 1012 (7th Cir.2002) (denying nationwide class certification because variances in consumer protection and fraud laws rendered class unmanageable); Lyon v. Caterpillar, Inc., 194 F.R.D. 206 (E.D.Pa.2000) (rejecting nationwide certification, finding consumer fraud laws of the various states are not uniform and management problems are likely to arise from the need to determine and apply the various consumer fraud acts); Szabo v. Bridgeport Machines, Inc., 249 F.3d 672, 674 (7th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). 112 . In re Paxil, 212 F.R.D. at 546. 113 .

A: holding that a district of columbia consumer protection statute that authorized representative actions and did not reference class action requirements or mandate class certification was a separate and distinct procedural vehicle from a class action and thus did not constitute a class action under cafa
B: holding that a nationwide class in what is fundamentally a breachofwarranty action coupled with a claim of fraud poses serious problems about choice of law the manageability of the suit and thus the propriety of class certification
C: holding that in determining the manageability of a proposed antitrust class action the district court must consider proof of damages
D: holding that tolling applies to a subsequent class action when class certification was granted in a prior case
B.