Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
because Shushan applies the analysis used for class actions brought under Rule 23, and because the Fifth Cir cuit has described Rule 23’s “opt out” procedure as fundamentally and irreconcilably different from § 216 (b)’s “opt in” proee-dure, see LaChapelle v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 513 F.2d 286, 288 (5th Cir.1975) (per curiam), most courts in this district follow the Lusardi approach. See Sandoz, 553 F.3d at 915 n. 2. See also Tolentino v. C & J Spec-Rent Services Inc., 716 F.Supp.2d 642, 646 (S.D.Tex.2010) (collecting cases). This court, therefore, will analyze plaintiffs motion using the Lusardi approach. At this initial state of the Lusardi approach, a plaintiff need only make a minimum showing to persuade the court to issue notice to potential class members. Mooney, 54 F.3d at 1214 . In the absence of Fifth Circuit guidance on
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding party may raise jurisdictional issue at any stage of proceedings
B. holding that the filing of a motion for a new trial is a critical stage of the prosecution and that an indigent defendant is constitutionally entitled to the assistance of counsel at that stage
C. holding that the application of the fair use doctrine at the pleading stage is appropriate
D. recognizing that courts apply a fairly lenient standard at the initial stage of the analysis
E. holding that a valid waiver of counsel at an early stage of the proceeding does not continue in effect through a subsequent stage
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.