Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
doctrine survived the PSLRA); Stanley v. Safeskin Corp., 2000 WL 33115908 at *4, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14100 at *13-14 (S.D.Cal. Sept. 15, 2000) (rejecting argument that group pleading doctrine did not survive the PSLRA); Zishka v. American Pad & Paper Co., 2000 WL 1310529 at *1-2, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13300 at *6-7 (N.D. Tex. Sept 13, 2000) (rejecting the group pleading doctrine in light of the PSLRA and requiring plaintiffs to plead with particularity allegations against each defendant); In re Solv-Ex Corp. Sec. Litig., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13113 at *15 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 6, 2000) (“The PSLRA has not abolished the use of group pleading in Section 10(b) cases.”); In re Ashworth Secs. Li-tig., 2000 WL 33176041 at *11-12, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15237 at *34-35 (S.D.Cal. July 18, 2000) ; Marra v. Tel-Save Holdings, Inc., 1999 WL
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that although the express warranty claim was not federally preempted the plaintiff had not alleged sufficient facts for the claim to survive dismissal under rule 8 where the pjlaintiff alleged no facts demonstrating that defendants made any affirmations specifically to plaintiff or her physician so as to form the basis of the bargain
B. holding that a mere allegation of fraud is insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to the pslra
C. holding that the group pleading doctrine survives the pslra as to rule 9bs particularity requirements but does not apply to the pslras scienter requirements
D. holding that the pslra particularity requirement compels plaintiffs to allege severe recklessness
E. holding that the group pleading doctrine did not survive the pslra because it cannot be reconciled with the pslras requirement that plaintiff state facts with particularity as to each alleged act or omission by the defendant
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.