Opinion ID: 186146
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Claim II class certification

Text: Cruz does not argue in his opening brief that the district court mistakenly declined to address whether the Claim II class should be certified given that it dismissed only the representative plaintiffs’ claims on the merits at the summary judgment stage, rather than all of the claims of the Claim II putative class. Although we may discern a hint of such an argument after a close reading of plaintiffs’ reply brief (albeit not a hint supported by both citations to authority and argument, as is required by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(9)), plaintiff was required to present, argue, and support this claim in his opening brief for us to consider it. See, e.g., Nat’l Lime Ass’n v. EPA, 233 F.3d 625, 633 (D.C. Cir. 2000). We are not ‘‘self-directed boards of legal inquiry and research, but essentially TTT arbiters of legal questions presented and argued by the parties.’’ Carducci v. Regan, 714 F.2d 171, 177 (D.C. Cir. 1983). We therefore do not consider whether the district court correctly declined to address the propriety of certifying the Claim II class after it dismissed the individual plaintiff’s damages claims. Although we do not decide the point, we note that many of the reasons the district court gave in declining to certify the Claim I class equally apply to whether the Claim II class should have been certified. Once the 22 injunctive claims are gone, the issues in both Claim I and Claim II are individualized.