Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): to return monies paid by or on behalf of the class members. The amount of these monies may be reasonably obtained from [LSRC’s] records.” Thus, the Keys proved that through the time-sequential job numbers assigned to each of LSRC’s contracts with putative class members from a point certain in time (i.e., from whatever point in time suit is timely based on the application, if any, of LSRC’s statute-of-limitations affirmative defense to the certified class claims for declaratory-judgment and DTPA section 17.50(a)(4) (Violation of Chapter 541 of the Texas Insurance Code) claims, the damages of each class member may be established solely by reference to the amount of LSRC’s contract with that class member. See Swv . Bell Tel. Co. v. Mktg. on Hold Inc., 308 S.W.3d 909, 923-24 (Tex. 2010) (<HOLDING>). LSRC asserts that even if this is true— so 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining predominance was not defeated by differing amount of damages each class member would be entitled to when calculations could be computed from defendants records (B) 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 (C) holding that where named plaintiff was employee of class counsel district court did not abuse its discretion by denying class certification (D) holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining expert witness was qualified to testify (E) holding that fdcpa statutory damages did not predominate over the requested equitable relief because given the defendants net worth and the number of class members each class member would be entitled to receive only 025 in statutory damages
Output (English): holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining expert witness was qualified to testify