F.3d 1014, Schwartz v. Upper Deck, Co., 183 F.R.D. 672, 679 (S.D.Cal.1999) ("When individualized determinations must be made, and then applied under the gamut of state law, class certification would provide massive manageability problems for a court.”); Lyon v. Caterpillar, Inc., 194 F.R.D. at 223 (finding class action not superior where "[mjanagement problems are likely to result from the need to determine and apply the various states’ consumer fraud acts"). 114 . Fed R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). 115 . The proposed class will consist of a breast cancer medical monitoring subclass and a dementia medical monitoring subclass. 116 . This is the exact claim that is made in In re Propulsid, 208 F.R.D. 133 and In re Baycol, 218 F.R.D. 197. 117 . See Barnes v. American Tobacco Co., 161 F.3d at 143 (<HOLDING>); See also In re Rezulin, 210 F.R.D. at 75;
holding the court was not required to decide the issue of whether the district court properly certified a rule 23b2 class because the court already concluded that the district court appropriately certified the class under rule 23b3 citing authority for the proposition that a court need only find that a class action may be maintained under any of the three subdivisions holding that although a case may be certified under rule 23b2 which does not have a superiority or predominance requirement certification under b2 does not relieve a court of its obligation to determine whether the existence of individual issues preclude certification holding affirmative defense of mitigation did not preclude class certification holding that determining whether a loan was federally related under respa did not preclude class certification recognizing that the need for individual damages determinations does not in and of itself require denial of a motion for certification under rule 23b3