New Hampshire rules for class certification). For these reasons, the Court rejects Fiesta Shows’s argument that New Hampshire law bars class treatment for wage and overtime claims. Even if there is a conflict between New Hampshire law and Rule 23, the Court finds that Rule 23 does not “abridge, enlarge or modify” any substantive right in New Hampshire law. 28 U.S.C. § 2072(b) (Rules Enabling Act); see also Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs., P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393, 130 S.Ct. 1431, 176 L.Ed.2d 311 (2010). In Shady Grove, the Supreme Court held that Rule 23 did not violate the Rules Enabling Act despite a direct conflict with New York’s rules prohibiting class treatment of claims involving penalties or statutory minimum damages. 559 U.S. at 408, 130 S.Ct. 1431 (plurality) (<HOLDING>); id. at 436, 130 S.Ct. 1431 (Stevens, J.,
holding that the rules enabling act precludes rule from abridging enlarging or modifying any substantive right holding that the federal expert witness compensation rules are in direct conflict with the state rules even when the state rules allow for a greater recovery holding that krs  3373852 prevents class certification under rule 23 in federal court because of the rules enabling act holding that rules allowing multiple claims to be litigated together  including rule 23  are categorically valid under the rules enabling act holding that the federal rules of civil procedure apply in diversity eases where they are on point unless they both directly conflict with state law and are invalid under the constitution or the rules enabling act