predicates is sufficient, as is a common core of salient facts coupled with disparate legal remedies within the class. Hanlon v. Chrysler, 150 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th Cir.1998) see also Staton v. Boeing, 327 F.3d 938, 953 (9th Cir.2003). The Supreme Court has recently clarified the commonality requirement, at least in e c. v. California Dept. of Transp., 249 F.R.D. 334, 346 (N.D.Cal.2008) (certifying class of mobility and vision impaired individuals in light of the issue common to all plaintiffs, namely whether and to what extent Caltrans had violated the ADA on a “systematic basis for many years through the use of improper design guidelines and the failure to ensure compliance with even those deficient guidelines”); L.H. v. Schwarzenegger, 2007 WL 662463, at *12 (E.D.Cal. Feb. 28, 2007) (<HOLDING>) Rule 23(a)(3) further requires that “the
holding that system wide deficiencies in the california juvenile parole system affect all of the putative class members with disabilities regardless of the specific nature of their disability holding that the proposed class included such a wide range of employees subject to such a wide range of criteria for individual performance evaluations that absent some evidence that microsofts benefits system effected sic  these various employees in the same or similar ways the enormous diversity of this putative class defeats a finding of commonality holding that entry of settlement decree without notice to putative class members violated the due process rights of the class members holding that it is not necessary that all putative class members share identical claims holding that putative class members are not parties to an action prior to class certification