Opinion ID: 2967859
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: H. Robins, 880 F.2d 709, 740 (4th Cir. 1989).

Text: To be sure, Rule 23(b)(3) class actions must meet predominance and superiority requirements not imposed on other kinds of class actions. This is because these suits involve situations where classaction treatment is not as clearly called for. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 advisory committee’s note (1966 Amendment, subdivision (b)(3)). However, as the Supreme Court has noted, the predominance and superiority requirements in Rule 23(b)(3) do not foreclose the possibility of mass tort class actions, but merely ensure that class certification in such cases achieve economies of time, effort, and expense, and promote . . . uniformity of decision as to persons similarly situated, without sacrificing procedural fairness or bringing about other undesirable results. Amchem, 521 U.S. at 615 (quoting Adv. Comm. Notes, 28 U.S.C. App. at 697). For these very reasons, we have expressly embraced the view that the mass tort action for damages may be appropriate for class action, either partially or in whole. Cen12 GUNNELLS v. HEALTHPLAN SERVICES, INC. tral Wesleyan Coll. v. W.R. Grace & Co., 6 F.3d 177, 185 (4th Cir. 1992) (citation, internal quotation marks, ellipses, and alterations omitted). Furthermore, [d]istrict courts have wide discretion in deciding whether or not to certify a class and their decisions may be reversed only for abuse of discretion, id. (internal quotation marks omitted), recognizing, of course, that this discretion must be exercised within the framework of Rule 23. Lienhart v. Dryvit Sys., Inc., 255 F.3d 138, 146 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting In re Am. Med. Sys., Inc., 75 F.3d 1069, 1079 (6th Cir. 1996)). Our review is particularly deferential in a case like this — involving an interlocutory appeal of a conditional class certification. See Central Wesleyan, 6 F.3d at 186 (noting that [t]he tentative, limited nature of the conditional certification . . . counsels in favor of affirmance.).3 With these principles in mind, we turn to the case at hand. Plaintiffs’ claims against TPCM and the Agents rest on different bases. Accordingly, like the district court, we consider class certification with respect to TPCM and the Agents separately.