Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Sony Pictures Entm’t, Inc., 116 Cal. App. 4th 135, 140, 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 333 (2004) (citing Kasky v. Nike, Inc., 27 Cal.4th 939, 967, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 296, 45 P.3d 243 (2002)). Typically, commercial speech is “speech that does no more than propose a commercial transaction.” Rezec, 116 Cal. App. 4th at 141, 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 333 (internal citations omitted). The Court finds that the assurances made by RCHSD’s staff do not constitute commercial speech. However, because Ms. Prescott has sufficiently alleged a UCL claim, based on the alleged misrepresentations on RCHSD’s website, RCHSD’s motion to dismiss her UCL claim is denied. ii. Standing on Behalf of Decedent Ms. Prescott has standing, as an individual representative, to bring k “UCR” Rates Litig., 903 F.Supp.2d 880, 898 (C.D. Cal. 2012) . Here, as to the fraudulent prong of the UCL,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that in the rule 23 class action context named plaintiff may appeal a denial of class certification even if his or her individual claims had been satisfied through the entry of judgment
B. holding that plaintiffs could only pursue ucl claims via assignment if they satisfied class action requirements
C. holding that a private party could pursue a representative action on behalf of others under the ucl only if the party met the requirements for a class action
D. holding that rule 23a requirements must be satisfied as if class were to litigate its claims
E. holding purposeful action of defendants in giving plaintiffs what they seek may not make moot plaintiffs claim in a class action
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.