was misrepresented as a tax, I agree with the majority that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying class certification. The trial court noted that there were various methods used by South Lubes to inform customers that the fee was not a tax, including menu boards, verbal explanations, and a letter and fee explanation notices. Moreover, the invoices showing the fee separately showed taxes charged. The trial court reasoned that it would be necessary to make a number of individual inquiries to determine which potential class members had actual knowledge that the fee was not a tax. Because of these individual inquires, I agree that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying certification. See The St. Joe Co. v. Leslie, 912 So.2d 21, 24-26 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (<HOLDING>). Appellant argues that the trial court erred
holding that common issues of fact did not predominate because it was necessary to make an individualized inquiry into equitable circumstances holding that individualized factual determinations precluded finding that common issues predominate reversing the class certification order holding that the mere existence of individualized factual questions with respect to the class representatives claim will not bar class certification holding that because the defendant has the right to litigate the issue of each class members consent the trial court did not improperly exercise its discretion in finding that these issues would predominate over common questions holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to certify class action when claims were so individualized that certification was improper