Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
period. Piggly Wiggly Clarksville, Inc. v. Interstate Brands Corp., 215 F.R.D. 523, 528 (E.D.Tex.2003). Rule 23(b)(3) provides that a class may be certified if, among other requirements, “the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.” The district court applied the correct legal standards, and we cannot say that it abused its discretion in denying class certification. A. Calculation of Damages The necessity of calculating damages on an individual basis, by itself, can be grounds for not certifying a class. Bell Atlantic, 339 F.3d at 308 (5th Cir.2003) ; O’Sullivan v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the predominance requirement was satisfied where determination of each class members damages involved a straightforward calculation of which days and how many hours they  worked as well as a review of the defendants written records keeping track of class members earnings
B. holding that putative class members are not parties to an action prior to class certification
C. 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
D. holding that the mere existence of individualized factual questions with respect to the class representatives claim will not bar class certification
E. holding that class certification is not appropriate because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the calculation of individualized actual economic damages if any suffered by the class members can be performed in accordance with the predominance requirement of rule 23b3
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.