plaintiffs claims and Ganley’s defenses are typical of the claims and defenses of the plaintiff and defendant classes described above and the parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the classes they represent.” 4 It is significant that this case involves a motion made pursuant to Civ. R. 23 (D)(4) and not a motion made pursuant to Civ. R. 23(C). In Financial Investment Research & Marketing Agency v. North Eastern Ohio Teachers Assn. (Cuyahoga Co. Ct. of Appeals No. 41461, July 10, 1980), unreported, this court held that a trial court may not summarily overrule a Civ. R. 23(C) motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing into the nature of the case. However, see Dery v. Lake Volkswagen, Inc. (Cuyahoga Co. Ct. of Appeals No. 36647, March 30, 1978), unreported (<HOLDING>). Because the instant case involves a Civ. R.
holding that class claims that fail to meet the requirements of rule 23 may be properly dismissed by granting a rule 12b6 motion holding that rule 23 applied even when the new york statute providing the cause of action prohibited class relief holding that tolling applies to a subsequent class action when the prior denial of class certification was based solely on rule 23 deficiencies of the putative representative 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 even if a defendant in a proposed class action does not seriously contest whether the rule 23 requirements have been met a court nevertheless has the responsibility of conducting its own inquiry as to whether the requirements of rule 23 have been satisfied in a particular case