Opinion ID: 2537799
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Falke's Procedural Claims Are Moot.

Text: In its June 14, 2005 order, the superior court granted Falke's request, made in his motion for reconsideration, to substitute the property as the defendant in the foreclosure action's caption. At the same time, the superior court accepted the Borough's suggestion, raised in its unsolicited partial opposition to Falke's motion for reconsideration, to strike from the caption the reference to properties similarly situated. Falke now complains that the Borough should not have been permitted to file an opposition absent the court's invitation and that the superior court erred in striking this language from the caption. [21] But the only arguable effect of the actions that Falke complains of was denial of class certification. Our reading of the record suggests that the superior court had not made a decision as to class certification but instead intended to postpone that question until after determining which, if any, of Falke's claims survived summary judgment. [22] In any event, even if the superior court's actions constituted denial of class certification, that ruling was not error because Falke, as a pro se litigant, cannot represent a class. [23]