an abuse of that discretion. Advance America v. Garrett, 344 Ark. 75, 40 S.W.3d 239 (2001); Mega Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Jacola, 330 Ark. 261, 954 S.W.2d 898 (1997); Direct Gen. Ins. Co. v. Lane, 328 Ark. 476, 944 S.W.2d 528 (1997); Farm Bureau Mutual Ins. Co. v. Farm Bureau Policy Holders & Members, 323 Ark. 706, 918 S.W.2d 129 (1996); Cheqnet Sys., Inc. v. Montgomery, 322 Ark. 742, 911 S.W.2d 956 (1995). However, the determination is purely a procedural question. BNL Equity Corp. v. Pearson, 340 Ark. 351, 10 S.W.3d 838 (2000). Neither the trial court nor the appellate court may delve into the merits of the underlying claim when deciding whether the requirements of Rule 23 have been met. Id.; see also Fraley v. Williams Ford Tractor & Equip. Co., 339 Ark. 322, 5 S.W.3d 423 (1999) (<HOLDING>); Mega Life & Health Ins. Co., supra. I.
recognizing that an appellate court ordinarily will not consider issues that were not raised at trial holding that twombly did not undermine the principle that all reasonable inferences are to be drawn in favor of the plaintiff and reaffirming that the facts alleged must be taken as true and a complaint may not be dismissed merely because it appears unlikely that the plaintiff can prove those faets or will ultimately prevail on the merits holding that the issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims holding that trial court may not consider whether plaintiff will ultimately prevail holding that this court will not consider a theory or issue that was not pleaded or raised in the trial court