that Plaintiffs Request for Oral Argument on Renewed Motion for Class Certification is DENIED. 1 . Numerous extensions of time were filed by both parties. Accordingly, the Motion for Renewed Class Certification was not ripe until November 23, 1998. Thereafter, the Court granted ences in insured-whole law defeats Rule 23(a) commonality. This Court, however, finds that the lack of uniformity of state law is more appropriately addressed in the context of Rule 23(b)(3) predominance. 6 . Geico also argues that Powers is an inadequate class representative because she lacks credibility. This Court finds, however, that any inquiry concerning Powers' credibility is an impermissible examination of the merits of the case. See Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. at 177-78, 94 S.Ct. 2140 (<HOLDING>). 7 . The Court is permitted to look beyond the
holding that district court in making class certification decision should avoid focusing on merits of underlying class action holding that it is error to certify class when named class representatives are not members of the class they purport to represent holding that the court cannot examine the underlying merits of the claims in determining whether to certify a class holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to certify class action when claims were so individualized that certification was improper holding that the trial court must examine the entire course of criminal conduct in determining possession