With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". this Court agrees with defendants that there is no basis for restricting a defendant from communicating with persons who are not putative class members. Cf. Kahan, 424 F.2d at 169 (noting that a putative class members’ rights in a litigation are protected as of the filing date of the complaint). Accordingly, this Court holds that because the non-putative class members agreed to arbitration before they became putative class members in this litigation, the arbitration clauses in their cardholder agreements can be enforced. Because these cardholders’ rights were hypothetical at the time the arbitration clauses were added, that change did not alter the status of the pending litigation. Further, this Court’s ruling is limited to the claims in this litigation, bec F.3d 294 (5th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); Livingston v. Assoc. Fin. Inc., 339 F.3d 553

A: holding that discriminatory pay reduction under fair labor standards act does not constitute continuing violation
B: holding claims based on the fair labor standards act subject to arbitration
C: holding that the inability to proceed as a class does not deprive plaintiffs of substantive rights under the fair labor standards act flsa
D: holding that application of fair labor standards act flsa to transportation employees employed by local government does not contravene the commerce clause because labor conditions of those employees affect interstate commerce
C.