With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". merits of a plaintiffs cause of action ... also implicate the class certification decision,” Jackson v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth, 260 F.R.D. 168, 184 (E.D.Pa.2009), such an inquiry is merely preliminary. Hydrogen Peroxide, 552 F.3d at 317. A plaintiff need not establish by a preponderance of the evidence the merits of its claims at the class certification stage, and any inquiry into the merits that is not necessary to a Rule 23 decision is precluded. Jackson, 260 F.R.D. at 184 (citing Newton, 259 F.3d at 166-67, and Hydrogen Peroxide, 552 F.3d at 317-18). However, the movant must do more than “assur[e] ... the court that it intends or plans to meet the requirements” of Rule 23. Hydrogen Peroxide, 552 F.3d at 318; see also Wachtel v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 453 F.3d 179, 186 (3d Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). As with other matters relating to Rule 23

A: holding that there must be full and clear articulation of the litigations contours at the time of class certification
B: holding that clearly established means the contours of the right were so clear at the time the officials acted that a reasonable official would have understood that what he was doing violated that right
C: holding that the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right
D: holding that to maintain a class action the existence of the class must be pleaded and the limits of the class must be defined with some specificity
A.