Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Council of Young Israel; Rabbinical Alliance of America; Rabbinical Council of America; Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America; and Torah Umesorah-National Society of Hebrew Day Schools. See Movants’ Proposed Answer, dated May 31, 1996, at 2-4. The defendant, Rabbi Schulem Rubin, named in the amended complaint in his official capacity as the Director of the Kosher Law Enforcement Division of the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets, is represented by the New York Attorney-General (“State” or “defendant”). Plaintiffs and the defendant object to intervention. By order dated July 11, 1996, the Honorable Denis R. Hurley referred this matter, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a), to the undersigned. See United States v. Certain Real Property, 751 F.Supp. 1060 (E.D.N.Y.1989) . Briefs were submitted by all parties, and
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that in class action the claim or defense of the representative party must be typical of the claim or defense of each member of the class
B. holding that a motion for rule 11 sanctions is dispositive
C. holding that a party may not raise a new claim in its response to a dispositive motion
D. holding that a motion for rule 37 sanctions is dispositive
E. holding that a motion to intervene is not dispositive of a claim or defense of a party
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.