over common issues. See O’Sullivan, 319 F.3d at 744-45 (“Where the plaintiffs’ damages claims focus almost entirely on facts and issues specific to individuals rather than the class as a whole, the potential exists that the class action may degenerate in practice into multiple lawsuits separately tried.”). But generally, individualized damage calculations will not preclude a finding of predominance, see Tyson Foods, Inc., 136 S.Ct. at 1045, so long as individual damages may be readily calculated from a defendant’s records. See, e.g., Leyva v. Medline Indus. Inc., 716 F.3d 510, 514 (9th Cir. 2013) (allowing class certification when individualized damages could be readily calculated from defendant’s computerized payroll records); Arreola v. Godinez, 546 F.3d 788, 801 (7th Cir. 2008) (<HOLDING>); Allapattah Servs. v. Exxon Corp., 333 F.3d
recognizing that actions for damages are best certified under rule 23b3 recognizing that the need for individual damages determinations does not in and of itself require denial of a motion for certification under rule 23b3 holding that certification under rule 23b3 was not appropriate because plaintiffs claims for compensatory and punitive damages must therefore focus almost entirely on facts and issues specific to individuals rather than the class as a whole holding that class seeking monetary damages in addition to medical monitoring did not seek certification pursuant to 23b2 only 23b3 holding that appeal from denial of rule 60b motion raised for review only the district courts order of denial and not the underlying judgment itself