applies to each potential class member and each defendant, and individual issues outnumber common issues, the district court should properly question the appropriateness of a class action for resolving the controversy. However, where the defendant’s liability can be determined on a class-wide basis because the cause of the disaster is a single course of conduct which is identical for each of the plaintiffs, a class action may be the best suited vehicle to resolve such a controversy. Sterling, 855 F.2d at 1197 (emphasis added); see also In re Am. Med. Sys., 75 F.3d at 1084; Rule 23(b)(3) advisory committee’s note. In contrast to Rule 23(a)’s commonality requirement, discussed above, Rule 23(b)(3)’s “predominance criterion is far more demanding.” Amchem, 521 U.S. at 624, 117 S.Ct. 2231 (<HOLDING>). To be sure, a need for individualized damage
recognizing a narrow class of cases in which the termination of the class representatives claim for relief does not moot the claims of the class members holding that certification of ab3 class on the basis of an overarching dispute about the health consequences of asbestos alone was inappropriate given the greater number of questions peculiar to the individual class members holding that the mere existence of individualized factual questions with respect to the class representatives claim will not bar class certification holding that individualized questions concerning the defendants responsibility for diminished sales prices of class members bonds predominated over any common questions rendering class certification inappropriate holding that putative class members are not parties to an action prior to class certification