that changed a previously certified class from opt-out to mandatory that “[t]o deny interlocutory appeal in this situation, when class counsel agrees to a fundamental restructuring of the class to which they were once opposed, aggravates those concerns.” De Los Santos, 933 S.W.2d at 495. However, the De Los Santos court did not hold, as Citgo suggests, that a conflict of interest alone, even if one is created, transforms an order that is not otherwise subject to interlocutory appeal into one that is. We do not have jurisdiction over an interlocutory order disposing of matters incidental to class certification unless the order also certifies or refuses to certify the class. See American Express Travel Related Servs. Co. v. Walton, 883 S.W.2d 703, 707 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1994, no writ) (<HOLDING>). THE SUBSTANCE AND PRACTICAL EFFECT OF THE
holding that section 51014a3 conferred jurisdiction over complaints about notice and class size only because the trial court disposed of those issues in its order certifying the class holding that to maintain a class action the existence of the class must be pleaded and the limits of the class must be defined with some specificity recognizing cause of action by class member against class counsel for negligence in providing notice holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class but suggesting that prior to trial the district court ensure that appropriate subclasses are identified recognizing a narrow class of cases in which the termination of the class representatives claim for relief does not moot the claims of the class members