there be no trial” (citing Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23(b)(3)(D))). For that reason, Judge Friendly instructed that if an antitrust “‘class numbers in the thousands or millions,’ ” a court may not grant certification until “ ‘it can devise a practical means’ ” for trying the action. Abrams, 719 F.2d at 31 (quoting II Areeda & Turner, supra ¶ 332c, at 157). Any case of this size and numerosity is beset by potentially intractable problems of manageability. The crucial, unresolved difficulty in this litigation concerns individualized proof of damages, an issue that “can be critical in determining whether a class of antitrust claimants should be certified.” Manual for Complex Litigation § 33.11, at 303 (3d ed.1995); see Windham v. American Brands, Inc., 565 F.2d 59, 71 (4th Cir.1977) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). Specifically, a defense has been interposed
holding that there must be a causal connection between the alleged antitrust violation and the antitrust injury for there to be antitrust standing recognizing that in determining numerosity courts must consider the geographical dispersion of the class the ease with which class members may be identified the nature of the action and the size of each plaintiffs claim holding that a nationwide class in what is fundamentally a breachofwarranty action coupled with a claim of fraud poses serious problems about choice of law the manageability of the suit and thus the propriety of class certification holding that in determining the manageability of a proposed antitrust class action the district court must consider proof of damages holding that the right of all putative members of a proposed class in an action filed pursuant to kansass class action rule of civil procedure to file a separate action is preserved pending the determination of whether the initial case shall be maintained as a class action