Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of state. The proposed class therefore lacks the geographic diversity that favors a finding of numerosity. Finally, the Plaintiffs have not established that all fifty potential plaintiffs were deprived of compensation and would be able to participate in the litigation. Despite these concerns, case law demonstrates that plaintiffs may establish that join-der would be impracticable with as few as fifty members. See In re Thornburg Mortg. Inc. Sec. Litig., 912 F.Supp.2d 1178, 1234 (D.N.M.2012) (Browning, J.)(citing Robidoux v. Celani, 987 F.2d at 936 (“[T]he difficulty in joining as few as 40 class members should raise a presumption that joinder is impracticable.”)); Lopez v. City of Santa Fe, 206 F.R.D. at 289 (citing Olenhouse v. Commodity Credit Corp., 136 F.R.D. 672, 679 (D.Kan.1991) ). The Court has not refused to certify a class
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing a narrow class of cases in which the termination of the class representatives claim for relief does not moot the claims of the class members
B. holding that joinder is impracticable where the class consisted of at least fifty members
C. holding that entry of settlement decree without notice to putative class members violated the due process rights of the class members
D. holding that putative class members are not parties to an action prior to class certification
E. holding joinder not practicable where 100 to 150 class members were geographically dispersed
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.