Courts must conduct a rigorous analysis of whether the Rule 23 prerequisites are satisfied, which frequently overlaps with merits questions. The court must resolve factual disputes relevant to certification rather than accepting allegations.
Merits inquiry is permitted only to the extent it bears on certification.
Alternative Names:
Rigorous Analysis, Certification Standard of Review
Why it Matters?
This standard is what makes certification a contested evidentiary proceeding rather than a pleading assessment, and it authorizes the expert evidence and factual development that certification briefing now involves. Daubert analysis at the certification stage follows from it, since a court resolving whether a damages model satisfies predominance must assess whether the model is reliable. Defendants should use the standard affirmatively rather than treating certification as a paper motion.
Frequently Confused with
Related terms
Frequently asked questions
Does rigorous analysis permit merits inquiry?
Does Daubert apply at certification?
