614 (4th ed.2002) (hereinafter Newberg). It also serves an important function in Rule 1-023(B)(3) class actions because it allows the court to determine who is entitled to notice. Garrish v. United Auto., Aerospace, & Agric. Implement Workers of Am., 149 F.Supp.2d 326, 331 (E.D.Mich.2001). A Rule 1-023(B)(3) action compels “greater precision” defining the class than a Rule 1-023(B)(1) or (2) action. O’Connor, 184 F.R.D. at 319; see Yaffe v. Powers, 454 F.2d 1362, 1366 (1st Cir.1972) (noting that unlike Rule 23(b)(3) class actions where precise definition is important, less precise definition is required under Rule 23(b)(2) class actions because notice is not required); accord Anderson v. Coughlin, 119 F.R.D. 1, 3 (N.D.N.Y.1988); see Carpenter v. Davis, 424 F.2d 257, 260 (5th Cir.1970) (<HOLDING>). {22} This is not to say that the definition
holding that a class definition must be precise objective and presently ascertainable holding that in rule 23b2 action seeking injunctive and declaratory relief class members do not need to be so clearly identified that they can be presently ascertained holding that rule 23b2 calls for injunction as to all class members or to none of them and does not authorize class certification when each class member would be entitled to an individualized award of monetary damages holding that class seeking monetary damages in addition to medical monitoring did not seek certification pursuant to 23b2 only 23b3 holding that plaintiffs request for courtsupervised program requiring ongoing elaborate medical monitoring of class members exposed to contaminated groundwater qualified as injunctive relief and the court could properly certify the class under rule 23b2