With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Firefighters Pension & Ret. Sys., 28 P.3d 589, 547 (Okla.2001) (same); see State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Boellstorff, 540 F.3d 1223, 1228-30 (10th Cir.2008) (discussing rationale for American Pipe rule). A claim accruing after the filing of a class action but before denial of class certification is subject to tolling, see Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345, 354, 103 S.Ct. 2392, 2398, 76 L.Ed.2d 628 (1983); Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Christensen, 394 Md. 227, 905 A.2d 340, 363 (2006), and the statute of limitations remains tolled for all members of the putative class until class certification has been denied. Rosenthal, 883 P.2d at 531. However, the filing of successive class actions cannot serve to perpetually toll the running of the statute of limitations. See id. (<HOLDING>). In Korwek v. Hunt, 827 F.2d 874, 879 (2d

A: holding that tolling applies to a subsequent class action when the prior denial of class certification was based solely on rule 23 deficiencies of the putative representative
B: holding that tolling applies to a subsequent class action when class certification was granted in a prior case
C: recognizing rule
D: recognizing but not ruling on basis of federal rule prohibiting tolling during a successive class action
D.