With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". abandoned their common law fraud claim, they continue to pursue all of their other claims for compensatory damages, treble damages (a remedy akin to the punitive damage claim plaintiffs elected to forego when they abandoned their fraud claim), attorneys’ fees and costs, and a judgment enjoining defendants from continuing their allegedly unlawful combination or conspiracy. This is not a case where the class representatives are pursuing relatively insignificant claims while jeopardizing the ability of class members to pursue far more substantial, meaningful claims. Rather, here the named plaintiffs simply decided to pursue certain claims while abandoning a fraud claim that probably was not certifiable. See, e.g., Gunnells v. Healthplan Servcs., Inc., 348 F.3d 417, 434 (4th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); Sandwich Chef of Tex., Inc. v. Reliance Nat’l

A: holding the district court committed reversible error by certifying a class with respect to fraud claim
B: holding that a district court did not commit reversible error because it attached great weight to one factor
C: holding that a reviewing court must first ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error
D: holding that trial court committed reversible error in not instructing jury to determine credibility of incriminating statements attributed to defendant by state trooper
A.