Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Thus, class action treatment is warranted under Rule 23(b)(2). Moreover, the class is maintainable under Rule 23(b)(3) because “questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members” and that the class action vehicle is the “superior” method to adjudicate this dispute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). The factual and legal issues involved are identical because each member of the proposed class received substantially similar letters from the defendant. See Amchem Prods. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 625, 117 S.Ct. 2231, 138 L.Ed.2d 689 (1997)(“predominance is a test readily met in certain cases alleging consumer or securities fraud or violations of the antitrust laws”); Fry v. Hayt, 198 F.R.D. 461, 470 (E.D.Pa.2000)(Robreno, J.). While individual questions may arise in the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding common questions of fact and law predominated where defendant sent nearly the exact same debt collection letter to all the plaintiffs
B. holding that where the defendant obtained a nondefaulted debt under the mistaken belief that the debt was in default and where the defendants subsequent collection activities were based on that mistaken belief the defendant was a debt collector for purposes of the fdcpa
C. holding that a letter to an opposing party was a paper for purposes of frcp rule 11 where the attorney writing the letter sent a copy to the presiding judge in the case
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 a creditor could be liable for the misrepresentations in a letter mailed by a collection agency hired to send the letter
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.