Notes to 1998 Amendments, Subdivision (f). Significantly, Ford’s claims are conclusory and are not backed up by declarations, documents, or other evidence demonstrating potential liability or financial condition. We acknowledge that the potential recovery here may be “unpleasant to a behemoth” company, Mowbray, 208 F.3d at 294, but it is hardly terminal. Although the instant lawsuit is definitely more than a mere unpleasantry, the impact of the class certification alone does not support an appeal. Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that, absent a class action, Class Plaintiffs would have no meaningful redress against Ford. In connection with the death knell factor, we normally would look for error in the certification order. See Blair, 181 F.3d at 835 (<HOLDING>). Ford has not, however, sufficiently
recognizing the futility in granting review of a class certification decision that is impervious to revision even if the decision effectively terminates the litigation holding that district court in making class certification decision should avoid focusing on merits of underlying class action holding that the plaintiff was effectively asking the federal court to review and rule on the propriety of the state court action and that granting the requested relief would effectively declare the state court order invalid holding that this courts review is limited to the bia decision and the portions of the ijs decision that it expressly adopted holding that once a regional office decision is final a claimant may only attempt to overcome the finality of that decision in one of two ways a request for revision of the decision based on clear and unmistakable error or a claim to reopen based upon new and material evidence