Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that it claims will cause individualized inquiries to overwhelm the common issues. These claimed defenses are that (1) ECMC’s warning on a previous call can establish a customer’s awareness of and implied consent to future recordings of subsequent calls, and (2) a caller’s hold time for each individual call can serve as a proxy for notice and consent. (See id. 11:16-12:2, 12:13-27.) i. ECMC’s Prior Awareness Defense The Court will first consider the effect of ECMC’s proposed “prior awareness” defense. As ECMC correctly notes, the existence of prior awareness of its recording practice or consent thereto could raise the possibility of individual differences among class members. See, e.g., Right v. CashCall, Inc. (“CashCall II"), 231 Cal.App.4th 112, 132, 179 Cal.Rptr.3d 439 (2014) . Here, however, ECMC offers evidence only that
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that fdcpa statutory damages did not predominate over the requested equitable relief because given the defendants net worth and the number of class members each class member would be entitled to receive only 025 in statutory damages
B. holding that because the defendant has the right to litigate the issue of each class members consent the trial court did not improperly exercise its discretion in finding that these issues would predominate over common questions
C. holding that individualized factual determinations precluded finding that common issues predominate reversing the class certification order
D. holding that individualized questions concerning the defendants responsibility for diminished sales prices of class members bonds predominated over any common questions rendering class certification inappropriate
E. holding that common issues of fact did not predominate because it was necessary to make an individualized inquiry into equitable circumstances
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.