without assessing whether individual questions would predominate if each damages action had to be tried separately.” In re Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litig., 192 F.R.D. at 86 n. 19 (emphasis added); cf. Szabo v. Bridgeport Machines, 249 F.3d 672, 675 (7th Cir.2001) (granting Rule 23(1) review because "the district court’s decision to certify the class implie[d] that important legal principles have evaded attention by appellate courts. At critical junctures the district judge cited only decisions by other district judges, most in cases later settled and thus not subject to appellate consideration.”). 2 . The right to assert the defense against each and every class member is guaranteed by the Rules Enabling Act. See Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 479 F.2d 1005, 1014 (2d Cir.1973) (<HOLDING>) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2072), vacated on other
holding that the rules enabling act precludes rule from abridging enlarging or modifying any substantive right recognizing that under the act rule 23 cannot  abridge enlarge or modify any substantive right  recognizing rule holding that where it is clear from the allegations on the face of the complaint that the party seeking class certification could prove no set of facts sufficient to satisfy the requirements of both civ r 23 a and civ r 23 b the trial court may deny a motion to certify made pursuant to civ r 23 c without first granting the movant an evidentiary hearing pursuant to civ r 23 c 1 holding that krs  3373852 prevents class certification under rule 23 in federal court because of the rules enabling act