Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
individual litigation.” Id. To ensure that (b)(2) classes are cohesive in nature, the Third Circuit has explicitly “committed to the district court the discretion to deny certification in Rule 23(b)(2) cases in the presence of ‘disparate factual circumstances.’ ” Geraghty v. United States Parole Commission, 719 F.2d 1199, 1205 (3d Cir.1983) (citing Carter v. Butz, 479 F.2d 1084, 1089 (3d Cir.1973)). In Santiago, the court held that “court[s] should be more hesitant in accepting a (b)(2) suit which contains significant individual issues than it would under subsection 23(b)(3).” Santiago, 72 F.R.D. at 628; see also Society for Individual Rights, Inc. v. Hampton, 528 F.2d 905, 906, aff'd in part, 528 F.2d 905 (9th Cir. 1975); Rice v. City of Philadelphia, 66 F.R.D. 17, 20 (E.D.Pa.1974) . The Santiago court identified two reasons as
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that this is the rule in virtually all circuits
B. holding that rule 23b2 calls for injunction as to all class members or to none of them and does not authorize class certification when each class member would be entitled to an individualized award of monetary damages
C. holding prior order was interlocutory and subject to change at any time because all claims not yet litigated
D. holding that a case should not proceed as a b2 action where virtually all of the issues would have to be litigated individually in order to determine whether a particular alleged class member was entitled to any damages at all
E. holding that all matters litigated or which could have been litigated in al foreclosure action are forever at rest 
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.