added); Boughton v. Cotter Corp., 65 F.3d 823, 827 (10th Cir.1995) (Medical monitoring claims, if brought alone, request injunctive relief and “certification of a class under such circumstances [would be] legally permissible under Rule 23(b)(2).”). In sum, the plaintiffs’ proposed remedy is injunctive in nature and may be pursued under 23(b)(2). (2) SJC Opinion Philip Morris argues that the SJC effectively closed off the possibility of class certification under Rule 23(b)(2) because it held medical monitoring to be a legal, not equitable, claim. Donovan, 914 N.E.2d at 898. Since plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law in the form of payment of future medical expenses, Philip Morris asserts, they are not entitled to an injunction. See Lopez v. Garriga, 917 F.2d 63, 68 (1st Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). It points to several statements made by the
holding that an injunction is an extraordinary remedy holding that movant must demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction holding in part that the trial court abused its discretion in granting a temporary injunction in the absence of a showing that the plaintiff did not have an adequate remedy at law holding that temporaryinjunction orders simple recitation of conclusory statement that plaintiff will suffer an irreparable injury for which it has no other adequate legal remedy does not satisfy rule 683s requirement that a temporary injunction order specify reasons why plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law holding that injunction seeker must demonstrate no adequate remedy at law