just means of providing all parties a reasonable forum and remedy. See Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 184-85, 94 S.Ct. 2140, 40 L.Ed.2d 732 (1974) (Douglas, J., concurring and dissenting in part) (discussing the relationship between the trial court’s discretion and Rule 23’s flexibility to manage the case); see also In re Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litig., 280 F.3d at 140-41 (indicating that the certification issue is peculiarly within the discretion of the trial court as management is “always a matter of justifiable and serious concern for the trial court” and the trial court has a great deal of flexibility to manage the class as necessary) (internal quo tation marks and citation omitted); State v. Ferguson, 111 N.M. 191, 192-93, 803 P.2d 676, 677-78 (Ct.App.1990) (<HOLDING>). Thus, within certain parameters designed to
holding that mere fact that trial court may decide discretionary matter differently from appellate court does not demonstrate abuse of discretion recognizing difficulty of evaluating judges demeanor upon appellate review holding that there is no due process right to appellate review recognizing discretionary review is given to trial judge who is thought to be in a better position than appellate judges to decide certain matters wisely and justly holding the issue of recusal of the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review must be raised in the trial court