With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". time frame, beginning with the merger application to the FCC and ending with New Cingular’s refusal to disclose to its customers why they were experiencing service degradations. Moreover, while the claims are made on information and belief, Shroyer explains exactly what it is that he believes constituted the fraudulent statements: New Cingular telling the FCC that it would honor its pre-existing contracts. Thus, the fraud claims have been pleaded with particularity sufficient to allow New Cingular to prepare an answer. 2. Reliance New Cingular next argues that the fraud claims cannot stand because Shroyer cannot prove both actual and justifiable reliance. See OCM Principal Opportunities Fund v. CIBC World Mkts. Corp., 157 Cal.App.4th 835, 864, 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 828 (Cal.Ct.App.2007) (<HOLDING>). Shroyer counters that reliance can be

A: recognizing fraud to be a known misrepresentation or a nondisclosure
B: holding no justifiable reliance as a matter of law
C: holding that  523a2a requires justifiable but not reasonable reliance
D: holding that in fraud and nondisclosure claims a plaintiff must show actual and justifiable reliance
D.