managing a class action. We will reverse a district court’s decision to certify a class only upon a showing that the court abused its discretion, or that it applied incorrect legal standards in reaching its decision.” Mullen v. Treasure Chest Casino, LLC, 186 F.3d 620, 624 (5th Cir.1999) (citations omitted). The decision turns on the unique facts of each case. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 339 F.3d 294, 301 (5th Cir.2003). The district court, in a cogent opinion, held that the predominance requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) was not met, because individualized proof would be required to establish the amount of damages as to each class member and whether each class member could take advantage of the fraudulent concealment doctrine to extend the F.3d 732, 745 (5th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 151 F.3d
holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class but suggesting that prior to trial the district court ensure that appropriate subclasses are identified holding that the district court erred in certifying a class without evaluating intraclass conflicts holding district court abused its discretion in admitting state court findings of fact holding that district court abused its discretion in certifying class in light of the individ ual calculation of damages that is required holding that district court abused its discretion in certifying class action when claims were too individualized to satisfy rule 23as commonality and rule 23b3s predominance requirements