Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
(citing Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. at 821-23, 105 S.Ct. 2965). 48 . See Castano v. American Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734, 741 (5th Cir.1996) ("A requirement that a court know which law will apply before making a predominance determination is especially important when there may be differences in state law.”); In re Baycol Products Litigation, 218 F.R.D. 197, 207, 211-12 (D.Minn.2003) (addressing the choice-of-law issue as it pertains to Rule 23(b)(3), and pointing out the how the differences in state law preclude the formation of a medical monitoring class under 23(b)(2)); In re Propulsid, 208 F.R.D. at 145 (addressing the choice-of-law as its own factor, and then applying it to the proposed 23(b)(2) class); In re Paxil Litigation, 212 F.R.D. 539, 544-45 (C.D.Cal. 2003) . 49 . Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) requires the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that the number of class representatives is not significant under rule 23a
B. holding that choiceoflaw issues prevented a manageable class under rule 23a
C. holding that the plaintiffs had not offered sufficient evidence that their claims met the requirements of rule 23a
D. holding that rule 23a requirements must be satisfied as if class were to litigate its claims
E. holding that a proposed class of 40 was a sufficiently large group to satisfy rule 23a
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.