be certified depends entirely on whether the proposal satisfies the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23. Garcia v. Gloor, 609 F.2d at 160 (citations omitted). The defendant has submitted affidavits from ten white people who aver that they sought but were denied application forms from D & L. Again, these affidavits miss the point of this motion to certify a class. They go to the merits of the claim that the procedure was discriminatory, not to the question of whether there exists a class of blacks who were denied applications. The issue of whether the proposed subclass meets the requirements of Rule 23 is entirely independent of the issue of whether the challenged practice was discriminatory. See Redditt v. Mississippi Extended Care Centers, Inc., 718 F.2d 1381, 1387-88 (5th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). IY. Conclusion The court holds that the
holding that district court had not abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint holding that it is error to certify class when named class representatives are not members of the class they purport to represent holding that the court cannot examine the underlying merits of the claims in determining whether to certify a class holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to certify class action when claims were so individualized that certification was improper holding that lower court abused its discretion when it refused to certify class because plaintiff had not shown that the defendant practiced racial discrimination