to allow an interlocutory appeal under D.C.Code § 11 — 721(d). See D.C.App. R. 5(a) (“The clerk shall not accept such application [for leave to appeal an interlocutory order] for filing unless the ruling or order sought to be appealed contains the statement of the trial judge referred to in D.C.Code § ll-721(d).”). Superior Court Civil Rule 23(f) states that “[t]he Court of Appeals may in its discretion permit an appeal from an order of the Superior Court granting or denying class action certification under this Rule if application is made to it within ten days after entry of the order.” The intention of this language, we acknowledge, is to authorize this court to permit an appeal of an otherwise non-appealable interlocutory order without the trial judge’s certific 1223 (D.C.1986) (<HOLDING>) (citing In re C.A.P., 356 A.2d 335, 343
recognizing respondeat superior liability holding superior court lacked authority to remand to commission holding superior court civil rule 101a1 a nullity for the superior court may not adopt a rule which abridges any substantive right holding that where a superior court judge was named a defendant in an action for a writ of mandamus the prosecuting attorney is the proper court representative of the superior court judge holding that court of appeals may adopt such waiver rule