(internal citations omitted, quoting Cordes & Co. Fin. Servs., Inc. v. AG. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 502 F.3d 91, 104 (2d Cir.2007) and Moore v. PaineWebber, Inc., 306 F.3d 1247, 1252 (2d Cir.2002)). In determining whether common issues will predominate overall, district courts are required to consider all factual or legal issues, including those conceded by the party opposing class certification or resolved earlier in the litigation. See Myers, 624 F.3d at 550 (“[T]he reason for this is that the predominance requirement requires a district court to consider all factual or legal issues, to determine whether the issues subject to generalized proof are more substantial than those subject to individual inquiry.” (quotation marks and citation omitted)); Strip Search Cases, 461 F.3d at 227-29 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the Second Circuit has held that a
holding that the district court abused its authority in requiring bumping holding that district court properlydiscounted four calls as de minimis holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants motion to dismiss on de minimis grounds where his expert witness testimony was inadmissible holding that district court abused its discretion in finding predominance requirement unsatisfied where defendants conceded all the major liability issues and asserted an affirmative defense requiring only de minimis individualized inquiry holding district court abused its discretion in admitting state court findings of fact