no reversionary interest in the right-of-way could be affected by the NITU. Id. Therefore, the size of the proposed class “cannot be surmised merely by counting the number of all landowners adjacent to the corridor.” Id. at 7. Moreover, there is no merit to the assertion that the court should defer ruling on the number of individuals with an ownership interest in the right-of-way until some later date. Id. The prerequisites of RCFC 23 require the court to make findings, even if they overlap with issues on the merits. Id. (citing Gariety v. Grant Thornton, LLP., 368 F.3d 356, 365 (4th Cir.2004) (“[T]he factors spelled out in Rule 23 must be addressed through findings, even if they overlap with issues on the merits.”)); Szabo v. Bridgeport Machs., Inc., 249 F.3d 672, 675 (7th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). In sum, the Government is not depriving
holding that the court has no authority to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the merits of an action to determine whether it may be maintained as a class action holding that nothing in eisen which proscribes an inquiry into the merits of a suit to determine if class certification is appropriate prevents the district court from looking beneath the surface of a complaint to conduct the inquiries identified in frcp 23 and exercise the discretion it confers holding that while it is not appropriate to consider the merits in determining certification the admissibility of all evidence which has relevance to the merits is not barred if it is relevant to the purpose of refuting or supporting the existence of a class holding that the relevant inquiry is not whether the court has discretion to facilitate notice but whether this is an appropriate case in which to exercise discretion holding certification is not an occasion for inquiry into the merits