law or fact, etc. ... [Sometimes it may be necessary for the court to probe behind the pleadings before coming to rest on the certification question, and [ ] certification is proper only if the trial court is satisfied, after a rigorous analysis, that the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) have been, satisfied. Frequently that rigorous analysis will entail some overlap with the merits of the plaintiffs underlying claim. That cannot be helped. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, — U.S. —, —, 131 S.Ct. 2541, 2551,180 L.Ed.2d 374, 390 (2011) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Secs. Litig. v. Gen. Reinsurance Corp. (In re Am. Int’l Group Inc.), 689 F.3d 229, 237 (2d Cir.2012); Oakley v. Verizon Comm’ns, Inc., No. 09 Civ. 9175(CM), 2012 WL 335657, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 1, 2012) (<HOLDING>). Thus, “the United States Supreme Court has
holding that where proof of commonality necessarily overlapped with the merits contention that defendant had engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination inquiry into that merits contention was appropriate for rule 23 analysis recognizing that the district court did not reach the merits holding that a district court may award attorneys fees while the merits are on appeal holding that while the certifying court should not make any factual findings or merits determinations that are not necessary to the rule 23 analysis  where merits issues cannot be avoided they must be addressed recognizing that sanctions are collateral to the merits of the case and may be considered even after the merits are no longer before the district court