party moving for class certification bears the burden of satisfying the requirements set forth in RCFC 23 by a preponderance of the evidence.”); see also Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 177-78, 94 S.Ct. 2140, 40 L.Ed.2d 732 (1974) (in determining whether the requirements of class certification are met, the trial court must not inquire: “whether the plaintiff or plaintiffs have stated a cause of action or will prevail on the merits, but rather whether the requirements of the class action rule are met.”). Bare allegations do not satisfy plaintiffs burden under RCFC 23. Therefore, in this case, the court is required to conduct an analysis to determine if the prerequisites of RCFC 23 have been satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence. Falcon, 457 U.S. at 161,102 S.Ct. 2364 (<HOLDING>). This analysis requires the court to “make the
holding that class actions may only be certified if the trial court is satisfied after a rigorous analysis that the prerequisites of rule 23a have been satisfied holding that appellant satisfied exception 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 holding that rule 23a requirements must be satisfied as if class were to litigate its claims recognizing that the number of class representatives is not significant under rule 23a