With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to plaintiffs or the plaintiff class. Kleiner, 751 F.2d at 1206. A showing of actual harm is not necessary. Hampton Hardware, 156 F.R.D. at 633. “[I]t is unnecessary for a trial court to issue particularized findings of abusive conduct when a given form of speech is inherently conducive to overreaching and duress.” Kleiner, 751 F.2d at 1206. Plaintiffs cite Hampton Hardware for the proposition that ex parte contact with potential class members should be enjoined in situations where an ongoing commercial relationship exists, because of its inherently coercive nature. Pls.’ Reply at 5 (citing Hampton Hardware, 156 F.R.D. at 633). They cite the actual and potential dangers that exist when litigation looms over a continuing business relationship. Id; see also Kleiner, 751 F.2d at 1202 (<HOLDING>). The fear is that, “Crown’s employees,

A: holding that one partys economic status may cause it to forego certain rights it would otherwise have against the other party
B: holding that an arbitration agreement enforceable against party who signed the agreement even where the other party did not sign it because generally it is enough that the party against whom the contract is sought to be enforced signs it
C: holding that it may not
D: holding that a corporation is entitled to due process of law insofar as property rights are concerned so that a money judgment may not be entered against it where it was not a party to a cause and was not served with process even though the principal stockholder was a party to the cause
A.