members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). This class-action was certified under both Rule 23(a) and (b)(3). A district court “retains the ability to monitor the appropriateness of class certification throughout the proceedings and to modify or decertify a class at any time before final judgment.” In re Integra Realty Resources, Inc., 354 F.3d 1246, 1261 (10th Cir. 2004). This includes the duty to decertify the class after a settlement agreement has been reached between the parties, but where the requirements of class certification had not been met. See Amchem Prods., Inc., 521 U.S. at 620-28, 117 S.Ct. 2231 (<HOLDING>). The district court chose not to exercise this
holding that the district court abused its discretion by decertifying the class without permitting class counsel reasonable time to determine whether a new class representative could be substituted holding however that class certification was properly denied without discovery where plaintiffs could not make a prima facie showing of rule 23s prerequisites or that discovery measures were likely to produce persuasive information substantiating the class action allegations holding that courts are bound to enforce rule 23s certification requirements even where it means decertifying a class after they had reached a settlement agreement and submitted it to the court for approval holding that under wilkerson it was error for district court to deny class action certification motion of named plaintiffs whose claims were resolved after filing motion for class certification but before district court decided motion holding that putative class members are not parties to an action prior to class certification