With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to control the class certification process, and “[wjhether or not discovery will be permitted ... lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Kamm v. Cal. City Dev. Co., 509 F.2d 205, 209 (9th Cir.1975); accord Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 871 n. 28 (9th Cir.2001). Although a party seeking class certification is not always entitled to discovery on the class certification issue, we have stated that “[t]he propriety of a class action cannot be determined in some cases without discovery,” Kamm, 509 F.2d at 210, and that “the better and more advisable practice for a District Court to follow is to afford the litigants an opportunity to present evidence as to whether a class action was maintainable.” Doninger v. Pac. Nw. Bell, Inc., 564 F.2d 1304, 1313 (9th Cir.1977) (<HOLDING>); accord Mantolete v. Bolger, 767 F.2d 1416,

A: holding that no subsequent class actions may benefit from tolling when class certification has been denied
B: holding however that class certification was properly denied without discovery where plaintiffs could not make a prima facie showing of rule 23s prerequisites or that discovery measures were likely to produce persuasive information substantiating the class action allegations
C: holding that a district of columbia consumer protection statute that authorized representative actions and did not reference class action requirements or mandate class certification was a separate and distinct procedural vehicle from a class action and thus did not constitute a class action under cafa
D: holding that tolling applies to a subsequent class action when class certification was granted in a prior case
B.