Appeal of a class certification order; Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(f); Certification of issues for class treatment under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(c)(4); Interaction between Rule 23(c)(4) & Rule 23(b)(3); Adoption of the “broad view” when determining class certification; In re Nassau Cnty. Strip Search Cases (2d Cir.); Valentino v. Carter-Wallace, Inc. (9th Cir.); McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (7th Cir.); Pella Corp. v. Saltzman (7th Cir.); Gunnells v. Healthplan Servs., Inc. (4th Cir.); Randleman v. Fidelity Nat’l Title Ins. Co.; Gates v. Rohm & Haas Co. (3d Cir.); In re St. Jude Med., Inc. (8th Cir.); Rule 23(b)(3)’s “predominance” requirement; Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo; “Superiority” requirement; Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor; Pipefitters Local 636 Ins. Fund v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of MI; In re Whirlpool Corp. Front-Loading Washer Prods. Liab. Litig.; Whether there were Seventh Amendment Reexamination Clause issues; U.S. Const. amend. VII; Olden v. LaFarge Corp.

In an issue of first impression, the court adopted the “broad view” under which Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance and superiority prongs are applied after common issues have been identified for class treatment under Rule 23(c)(4), and affirmed the district court’s class certification of seven issues under Rule 23(c)(4). The plaintiffs sought class certification on their claims that defendants contaminated their groundwater. Defendants argued that the district court erred by granting the class-certification petition on seven issues under Rule 23(c)(4). The court considered the interaction between Rule 23(c)(4) and Rule 23(b)(3) and adopted the broad view, which “permits utilizing Rule 23(c)(4) even where predominance has not been satisfied for the cause of action as a whole.” The court concluded that “Rule 23(c)(4) contemplates using issue certification to retain a case’s class character where common questions predominate within certain issues and where class treatment of those issues is the superior method of resolution.” It held that the predominance requirement was satisfied as to the seven issues where “each issue may be resolved with common proof” and where “individualized inquiries do not outweigh common questions[.]” The court also held that the issue classes satisfied Rule 23(b)(3)’s superiority requirement where, even though class treatment of these issues will not entirely resolve defendants’ liability, “it will materially advance the litigation.” The court held that no Seventh Amendment Reexamination Clause issues existed where the district court had not yet outlined the specific procedures to address the plaintiffs’ claims.