With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". added); Boughton v. Cotter Corp., 65 F.3d 823, 827 (10th Cir.1995) (Medical monitoring claims, if brought alone, request injunctive relief and “certification of a class under such circumstances [would be] legally permissible under Rule 23(b)(2).”). In sum, the plaintiffs’ proposed remedy is injunctive in nature and may be pursued under 23(b)(2). (2) SJC Opinion Philip Morris argues that the SJC effectively closed off the possibility of class certification under Rule 23(b)(2) because it held medical monitoring to be a legal, not equitable, claim. Donovan, 914 N.E.2d at 898. Since plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law in the form of payment of future medical expenses, Philip Morris asserts, they are not entitled to an injunction. See Lopez v. Garriga, 917 F.2d 63, 68 (1st Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). It points to several statements made by the

A: holding that an injunction is an extraordinary remedy
B: holding that movant must demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction
C: holding that injunction seeker must demonstrate no adequate remedy at law
D: holding in part that the trial court abused its discretion in granting a temporary injunction in the absence of a showing that the plaintiff did not have an adequate remedy at law
C.