2006) (“ ‘Although there is no explicit requirement concerning the class definition in FRCP 23, courts have held that the class must be adequately defined and clearly ascertainable before a class action may proceed,’ ” quoting Schwartz v. Upper Deck Co., 183 F.R.D. 672, 679-80 (S.D.Cal. 1999)); Thomas & Thomas Rodmakers, Inc. v. Newport Adhesives & Composites, Inc., 209 F.R.D. 159, 163 (C.D.Cal.2002) (“Prior to class certification, plaintiffs must first define an ascertainable and identifiable class. Once an ascertainable and identifiable class has been defined, plaintiffs must show that they meet the four requirements of Rule 23(a), and the two requirements of Rule 23(b)(3)” (citation and footnote omitted)); O’Connor v. Boeing North American, Inc., 184 F.R.D. 311, 319 (C.D.Cal.1998) (<HOLDING>); Bishop v. Saab Auto. A.B., No. CV 95-0721 JGD
holding that it is elementary that in order to maintain a class action the class sought to be represented must be adequately defined and clearly ascertainable holding that to maintain a class action the existence of the class must be pleaded and the limits of the class must be defined with some specificity holding that a class definition must be precise objective and presently ascertainable holding that the claims of the class representative and class members must be based on the same legal or remedial theory holding that a class could not be certified because the definition made class members impossible to identify prior to individualized factfinding and litigation and thereby failed to satisfy one of the basic requirements for a class action under rule 23