45, 72-73 (D.N.J.1971) (denying certification of class consisting of six million retail consumers on management grounds where distribution of any award would be “extremely difficult or almost impossible,” even though its decision would leave many consumers without any remedy). {33} Although Plaintiffs must establish both the predominance and superiority requirements, these criteria are also intertwined, and the manageability issue is relevant to both. Jackson v. Motel 6 Multipurpose, Inc., 130 F.3d 999, 1006 n. 12 (11th Cir.1997); Katz, 496 F.2d at 762. Once predominance is determined, the superiority and manageability issues “fall into their logical place.” In re Catfish Antitrust Litig., 826 F.Supp. 1019, 1044 (N.D.Miss.1993); see In re Potash Antitrust Litig., 159 F.R.D. at 699-700 (<HOLDING>). If predominance is met, courts generally find
holding common questions of fact and law predominated where defendant sent nearly the exact same debt collection letter to all the plaintiffs holding that a showing that common issues predominated also established superiority and a presumption against dismissal for management reasons holding that individualized issues of consent predominated over common issues because defendant set forth specific evidence showing large amount of the putative class consented to receive faxes holding that discretion to determine superiority issue is paramount 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