presented by individual questions). When individual issues predominate over common issues, a class action is neither fair nor efficient, and regardless of the impracticability of individual litigation, the certification must fail. Jackson, 130 F.3d at 1006 n. 12 (noting that when individual issues predominate, the class action is singularly inefficient and unjust). {34} The court’s discretion is paramount when it determines whether a class action is manageable. See In re Visa Check/Master Money Antitrust Litig., 280 F.3d at 141 (indicating that the certification issue is peculiarly within the discretion of the trial court as management is “always a matter of justifiable and serious concern for the trial court”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Coleman, 141 F.R.D. at 529 (<HOLDING>). There is a whole range of practical problems
holding that a showing that common issues predominated also established superiority and a presumption against dismissal for management reasons holding failure to exercise discretion is abuse of discretion holding that the faas action in this case was  analogous to an exercise of prosecutorial discretion  and noting that when prosecutorial discretion is at issue the matter is presumptively committed to agency discretion by law holding that discretion to determine superiority issue is paramount holding that claim construction is a matter of law for the court to determine