WPC*( P#an鳭/^t =]E8(#̰&V۪QT;18L~,^n w^XӬ 8(]6xuqWGLo47:Q"/Tk8X>v`֞9_-,޵>cmxI8QjP ܹhuOIf^˰E~ƒ<ƞ'Wޔ>zXSТC0[xAe58%FkY:N+n *NjjjLRiGr >gNJ0~տ7*fKEt6FT_Z/[IcMybb.o*2AxO+y]6@dž)Vn1 *i`=D֡?ؙ[_ c(m° nK\.$Z .g#UFc % 0: ^ w 4   m 0D5 0y nT Nh j UNr E f a N U8 UB bT |\ %ZZZ B`!!!!!!!!%(%HP LaserJet 5/5M - Standard,,,,0<4 9Z+.Courier New RegularX($USUS.,0s v0(y File3|xU(#$  0  (9:2>$ !USUS.,        0  <6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@ vr Z6Times New Roman RegularTABLE A<4 9Z+ Courier New <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- - r  >$USUS.,      1    _ThetrendbeganwiththeSupremeCourt'sdecisioninBellv.  Wolfish,441U.S.520(1979).Inthiscircuit,theleadingcases  areWoodv.HancockCountySheriff'sDep't,354F.3d57(1stCir. \ 2003);XXXXԀMillerv.KennebecCounty,219F.3d8(1stCir.2000)#XXXX#; 2 Swainv.Spinney,117F.3d1(1stCir.1997).   ' Turner0Turner .      >$USUS.,      2    _Judge_Hornby_'sorder,_Nilsen_,219_F.R.D._Ԁat25,definesthe  classas:  Allpeoplestrip-searchedattheYorkCountyJailafter 2 October14,1996underapolicyorcustomofconducting X strip-searcheswithoutevaluatingforindividualized . reasonablesuspicion:(1)whilewaitingforbailtobe   setorforafirstcourtappearanceafterbeingarrested   onchargesthatdidnotinvolveaweaponordrugsora `  violentfelony;or(2)whilewaitingforafirstcourt 6   appearanceafterbeingarrestedonadefaultorother  \  warrant.  2  m_   >$USUS.,      3    _Cf.Stantonv.BerkshireReg'lSch.Dist.,197F.3d574,577  (1stCir.1999)(attorneys'feesunderIDEA);Mass.FoodAss'nv.  Mass.AlcoholicBeveragesControlComm'n,197F.3d560,567(1st \ Cir.1999)(adequacyofrepresentationunderFed.R.Civ.P. 2 24(a)). X    >$USUS.,      4    _CompareBlihovdev.St.CroixCounty,219F.R.D.607,622  (W.D.Wis.2003),Bynumv.DistrictofColumbia,217F.R.D.43,50  (D.D.C.2003),Maneelyv.CityofNewburgh,208F.R.D.69,7679 \ (S.D.N.Y.2002),Mackv.SuffolkCounty,191F.R.D.16,25(D. 2 Mass.2000),andSmithv.MontgomeryCounty,573F.Supp.604,613 X (D.Md.1983)(allcertifyingstripsearchclassactions),with . Kleinv._DuPage_ԀCounty,119_F.R.D._Ԁ29,3132(N.D.Ill.   1988)(denyingcertificationforstripsearchclassaction).There   arealsoseveralunpublishedopinionscomingoutbothways. d   >$USUS.,      5    _Compare_Eisen_v.Carlisle&_Jacquelin_,417U.S.156,177  (1974)(discouraginganypreliminaryinquiry),withGen.Tel.Co.of  _S.W._v.Falcon,457U.S.147,160161(1982)(endorsingsuchan \ inquiry).Thecircuitsarealsodivided.Compare_Caridad_v. 2 MetroNorthCommuterR.R.,191F.3d283,29193(2dCir.1999),and X _J.B._Ԁexrel.Hartv.Valdez,186F.3d1280,1290n.7(10thCir. . 1999),withJohnstonv._HBO_ԀFilm_Mgmt_.,Inc.,265F.3d178,18689   (3dCir.2001),and_Szabo_v.Bridgeport_Machs_.,Inc.,249F.3d672,   67576(7thCir.),cert.denied,534U.S.951(2001). V  >$USUS.,      6    _SeeXXXXMiller,219F.3dat12;#XXXX#ԀSwain,117F.3dat12.If  anything,someoftherhetoricmightleadthereadertobelieve,  quitewrongly,thatevery_arrestee_Ԁmustbeindependentlyevaluated \ basedonhisorherowncircumstances.Inreality,generalizations 2 liebehindmostsocalledindividualdecisionsandtoendorsethe X  generalizationis,insubstance,toendorsesomecategoricalrules.  SeeRobertsv.RhodeIsland,239F.3d107,112(1stCir.2001) .      >$USUS.,      7    _Anumberofdistrictcourtssaythattheburdenof  identificationisonthedefendant,e.g.,_Blihovde_,219_F.R.D._Ԁat  622;Mack,191_F.R.D._Ԁat24;seealso_Int'l_ԀBhd.ofTeamstersv. \  UnitedStates,431U.S.324,360(1977)(TitleVII),butthevarious  burdenissueshavenotbeenbriefedinthiscase,andwedonot  resolvethem. \  !USUS.,  _TRY,3'X3' Letter 3' Letter3'T ? * !XXXX|XX     UnitedStatesCourtofAppealsE|  FortheFirstCircuit EXX   A') ` dE<` A   No.041065   @hh#LAURIE_TARDIFF_, K  @<< Plaintiff,Appellee,  G  @tt)v.   @ KNOXCOUNTY,DANIEL_DAVEY_, O  @Defendants,Appellants. K  A') ` dE<` A  No.041165  @MICHELE_NILSEN_,ETAL. 8 @ Plaintiffs,Appellees 4 @tt)v.  @$YORKCOUNTY, < @ Defendant,Appellant. 8   @<<  ____________________     @@*APPEALSFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT x  FORTHEDISTRICTOFMAINE $!t"   @$ $ [Hon.GeneCarter,SeniorU.S.DistrictJudge] " $ @ [Hon.D.BrockHornby,U.S.DistrictJudge] #% A') ` dE<Q%` A R% ' @'Before 7&!)   Boudin,ChiefJudge, '3#+ Campbell,SeniorCircuitJudge, )$- andLynch,CircuitJudge.@@(( ;+&/ A') ` dE<,` A ,7(1      ,F(2?L _  PeterT.MarchesiwithwhomWheeler&Arey,P.A.,JohnJ.  Wall,III,andMonaghanLeahy,LLPwereonbriefforappellants  KnoxCounty,DanielDaveyandYorkCounty. \   RobertJ.StoltwithwhomSumnerH.Lipman,Lipman,Katz& 2 McKee,P.A.,DaleThistle,LawOfficeofDaleThistleandFrank X DiPrimawereonbriefforappelleeLaurieTardiff. .   RobertJ.StoltforappelleesMicheleNilsen,etal.     HowardFriedman,J.LizetteRichards,LawOfficesofHoward   Friedman,P.C.,DavidG.WebbertandJohnson&Webbert,L.L.P.on `  briefforappelleesMicheleNilsen,etal. 6     JamesR.Pingeon,MassachusettsCorrectionalLegalServices,  \  Inc.,DeborahM.Golden,D.C.Prisoners'LegalServicesProject,  2  andWilliamClaiborneonbriefforMassachusettsCorrectionalLegal   Services,andD.C.Prisoners'LegalServicesProject,AmiciCuriae.     ChristinaR.L.Norris,DonnaA.SchneiterandSarahWunsch, d  AmericanCivilLibertiesUnionofMassachusetts,onbrieffor :  AmericanCivilLibertiesUnionofMassachusetts,AmicusCuriae. `    *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +       SI p @38085@SApril9,2004 F  RHC" @38085 @ R( p  (  * !    XXXX  8XXdXXd8*,X` XX*eOa ` BOUDIN,ChiefJudge. Beforeusareorderscertifying  classactionsintwojailhousestripsearchcases.Thetwocases, x arisingbeforetwodifferentjudgesinthesamecourt(Judges $t CarterandHornby),aretargetedattwodifferentMainecounties   (KnoxandYork).#XXXXk#XXXXIneachcase,anamedplaintiffseeksto |  representotherswho(itisalleged)wereimproperlystrip ( x  searched.Followingcertificationoftheclasses,weallowed $  interlocutoryappealsandnowaffirm.    ` Overthelastfewdecades,achangedpopularsensibility ,|  hasproducedaseriesofdecisionscurtailingwhatwasoncean ( apparentlyroutinepracticeinmanyjailsofstripsearching  arresteesnotyetconvictedofanycrime.  #  1      ׀Suchcaseshave 0 included,orbroughtintheirwake,lawsuitsbythosewhowere , searchedseekingdamagesfromofficialsorgovernmentalentities  responsibleforthesearches.E.g.,Millerv.KennebecCounty,219 4 F.3d8,1213(1stCir.2000).Thesesuitsareordinarilyframed 0 asFourthAmendmentclaimsforunconstitutionalsearchandseizure   andbroughtunder42U.S.C.1983(2000).Id. 8!"  ` Qualifiedimmunityhasdefeatedsomeoftheseclaims "4$ againstofficials,e.g.,Savardv.RhodeIsland,338F.3d23,33 $& (1stCir.2003)(enbanc),cert.denied,124S.Ct.1074(2004), <&!( butthedoctrinedoesnotprotectcounties,seeOwenv.Cityof  Independence,445U.S.622,650(1980).Thoughnotliableundera \ respondeatsuperiortheory,Bd.oftheCountyComm'rsv.Brown,520 X U.S.397,403(1997),countiesandlikeentitiesmaybeliable   undersection1983notonlyfortheirformalofficialactsand `  policies,butalso,undersomecircumstances,forpractices"so  \  permanentandwellsettledastoconstituteestablishedcustom.   Monellv.Dep'tofSocialServs.,436U.S.658,691(1978)(quoting d  Adickesv.S.H.Kress&Co.,398U.S.144,16768(1970)). `   ` InthefirstcasebeforeusbroughtagainstKnox   County,itssheriff,andunidentifiedofficersLaurieTardiff h filedsuchasection1983claim,assertingthatshehadbeen d arrestedforwitnesstamperingafterhavingbeenpreviouslycharged  withviolatinganantiharassmentorder.Tardiffv.KnoxCounty, l 218F.R.D.332,334(D.Me.2003).#XXXX#XXXXԀAtthejailhouse,Tardiff h allegedthatshewastakentoashowerarea,orderedbyafemale  correctionsofficertodisrobe,andrequiredto"squatandcough" p  whiletheofficercouldseehervaginaandanalarea.Id. !l"  ` JudgeCarter,presidinginthecase,calledthisa strip "$ andvisualbodycavitysearch,Tardiff,218F.R.D.at334#XXXX#XXXX;Judge t$& Hornby,facedwithasimilardescriptionbytheleadplaintiffin  &p!( aparallelsuitagainstYorkCounty,calledthesamethinga strip '#* search,Nilsenv.YorkCounty,219F.R.D.19,22,25(D.Me. x)$, 2003)#XXXX!#XXXX.#XXXXs##XXXXԀForsimplicityssake,weuse"stripsearch"inthis $+t&. decisiontocoverthedescribedconduct,recognizingthatthe  phraseisusedvariouslyindifferentdecisionsandthatthereis \ aspectrumofpossiblesearchpracticesinflictingdiffering X indignities.JustwhathappenedtoTardiffandothersmayitself   bedisputed. #XXXX##XXXX  `   ` Tardiffsoughttorepresentaclassofpersonssimilarly  \  situatedandinduecourseJudgeCartercertifiedaclassunder   Fed.R.Civ.P.23(b)(3).#XXXX%#Tardiff,218F.R.D.at336.XXXXԀ#XXXX&#XXXXԀTheclass, d  asdefinedbythecourt,covered:#XXXX0'# `    AllpeoplewhoafterNovember19,1996,were   subjectedtoastripsearchand/orvisualbodycavity  searchwithoutevaluationforindividualized h reasonablesuspicionwhilebeingheldattheKnox > CountyJail: d Ѐ'''  '44(1)afterhavingbeenarrestedonchargesthatdid  notinvolveaweapon,drugs,oraviolentfelony;  or l (2)whilewaitingforbailtobesetoncharges h thatdidnotinvolveaweapon,drugs,oraviolent > felony;or  (3)whilewaitingforaninitialcourtappearance p  onchargesthatdidnotinvolveaweapon,drugs,or F ! aviolentfelony;or !l" Ѐ(4)afterhavingbeenarrestedonawarrantthat "$ didnotinvolveaweapon,drugs,oraviolent #% felony. t$& 4)4)),Id.XXXX  &p!(  ` Inthesecondcase,broughtbeforeJudgeHornby,a '#* substituteleadplaintiff!MichaelGoodrichwasarrestedfor x)$, failingtoreportforprobationand(healleges)wasstripsearched $+t&. withthesamestrip,squatandcoughprocedureasTardiff#XXXX,#.XXXXNilsen  219F.R.D.at22.#XXXXk.#ԀLikeTardiff,heallegedthatthiswasdonein \ accordancewithapolicyorcustomofthecountythatwasapplied X widelytoarresteesincludingthosechargedwithunthreatening   offenses.JudgeHornby,actingshortlyafterJudgeCarter,entered `  acomparableordercertifyingaclassunderRule23(b)(3).Id.at  \  1920XXXX.#XXXX0#  #  2          ` Ineachcase,thedefendantssoughtinterlocutoryreview d  oftheclasscertification.Wehavediscretionastowhetherto `  entertainsuchanappeal.SeeFed.R.Civ.P.23(f)and1998   advisorycommittee'snotetosubdivision(f).Onereasonfor h reviewisathreatofliabilitysolargeastoplaceonthe d defendantan irresistiblepressuretosettle.WasteMgmt.  Holdings,Inc.v.Mowbray,208F.3d288,293(1stCir.2000). l Althoughwethoughtitquitepossiblethatthecertificationorders h  wouldsurvivereview,thefinancialandsimilarinformation  providedbythetwocountiesinthiscasepersuadedustogrant  interlocutoryreview,whichweexpedited. \   ` Nominally,reviewofdecisionsgrantingordenyingclass X certificationisfor abuseofdiscretion,Smilowv.S.W.Bell   MobileSys.,Inc.,323F.3d32,37(1stCir.2003),butthis `  chameleonphraseismisleading.Expressstandardsfor  \  certificationarecontainedinRule23,soanappealcanposepure   issuesoflawrevieweddenovooroccasionallyrawfactfindings d  thatarerarelydisturbed.Seeid.Here,weareconcernedwith `  applyinggeneralstandardstoparticularfactswherethetouchstone   is reasonablenessandreviewisdeferential.  #  3       h  ` AllclassactionscertifiedunderRule23mustmeet d certainprerequisiteslistedinsubsection(a):theremustbe  numerosityofclassmembers,commonquestionsoflaworfact,the l representativemustbetypicaloftheclass,andhisorher h representationoftheclassmustbeadequate.Fed.R.Civ.P.  23(a).Here,thesepreconditionsareadmittedlysatisfied.The p  defendantsattackisinsteadonthefurtherrequirement,fora !l" (b)(3)class,thatthecourtfindthatcommonquestions "$  predominateoverindividualonesandthattheclassactionbe t$& eOa e e  superiortoothermethodsofresolvingthecontroversy.Fed.R.  Civ.P.23(b)(3). \  ` Subsection(b)(3),thecutetigercubthathasgrowninto X somethingunexpectedlyfearsomeincivilrightsandmasstort   litigation,isajoinderdeviceforconsolidatingseparatebut `  similarclaims!asopposed,forexample,todisputesaboutacommon  \  fund,whichiscoveredbysubsection(b)(1)(B).Thesubsection   listsnonexclusivefactorsformakingthedetermination!themost d  pertinenthereismanageability!butthe"predominance"and `  "superiority"labelsturnlargelyontheparticularfactsand   issuespresented.Somecourtshaveallowedstripsearchclass h actionsandothersnot.  #  4       d  ` Whatherearetheissues?Theprincipalones!andthis  isourownveryroughcut!appeartobethese:whatrule,policyor l customastostripsearcheswasinforceineachcountyduringthe h periodsinquestion;wasitlawfulasappliedtogroupsor  individualclassmembers;ifunlawfulastosomecategoriesof p  arrestees,weretherestillfactsastoparticulararresteesthat !l" justifiedastripsearch;andifliabilityexists,whatarethe "$ damagestoeachpersoninjured?Thereareobviouslyotherissues  (e.g.,astoindividualdefendants);butthesefourarelikelythe \ mostimportant.  X  ` Onthefirstissue!whatrules,policiesorcustoms   prevailed!thereisalreadydeepdisagreementbetweenplaintiffs `  anddefendants.Sothequestionariseswhoseversionisacourtto  \  assumeforpurposesofdecidingwhetheraclassactioniseven   suitable?Itissometimestakenforgrantedthatthecomplaints d  allegationsarenecessarilycontrolling;butclassactionmachinery `  isexpensiveandinourviewacourthasthepowertotestdisputed   premisesearlyonifandwhentheclassactionwouldbeproperon h onepremisebutnotanother.Z  #  5       d  ` Inthiscase,whethertherewasarule,policyorcustom  ofautomaticallystripsearchingallormostcategoriesof l arresteesisonitsfaceacommondisputedissue!asbothsides h concede.Nothinghereobligedthedistrictcourtstodomorethan  viewtheissueassuchand,soviewed,itweighsinfavorofclass p  actionstatus.Theissueislikeanyothercommonpredicateto !l" liabilityformultipleparallelclaims!saywhetherthetrain "$ engineerwasnegligent(oractingwithinthescopeofhis  employment)whenthetrainwentofftherails.See,e.g.,Am. \ Trading&Prod.Corp.v.Fischbach&Moore,Inc.,47F.R.D.155, X 157(N.D.Ill.1969).     ` Thesecondissue,whetherthestripsearchpolicyis `  unlawful,presentsdifferentcomplications.Thefirstisthatit  \  mightbelawfulastosomegroupsofarrestees(say,thosearrested   onfirearmfelonycharges)andnotothers(say,thoseseizedfor d  nonpaymentofparkingtickets).Bothdistrictcourtssoughtto `  narrowthepotentialmultiplicityofcategories!whichcouldin   severalrespectsworkagainstclassstatus!bynarrowingtheclass. h Inbothorders,theclassdefinitionexcludedthosearrestedfor d drugs,weaponsorviolentfelonies!categoriesforwhichautomatic  stripsearchesmightseemeasiertodefend.Nilsen,219F.R.D.at l 25;Tardiff,218F.R.D.at336. h  ` Ofcourse,thedefendantsmightstillpersuadethecourt  thatsomewithintheremaininggroupofarrestees(e.g.,those p  arrestedformisdemeanorsofcertaintypes)couldalsobestrip !l" searchedasamatterofcourse.Butthecorenotionthatsome "$ classesofarresteesshouldnotbestripsearchedwithout t$& particularizedsuspicionisnowembeddedinthecaselaw.]  #  6      ׀Just  &p!( whatgroupswithintheclasscanorcannotbesearchedwithoutsuch  suspicionappears,liketherulepolicycustomquestion,topresent \ acommonsetofissuesproperforaclassaction. X  ` Turningtothethirdoftheissueswelisted,defendants   saythatindividualizedsuspicionmayhaveexistedastoanyone `  withinthecertifiedclass,sothateveryclassmembernecessarily  \  presentsadifferentproblemevenastoliability.True,aclass   memberarrestedforthemostminorandnonviolentofoffenses d  mightarguablywarrantastripsearchbyhisindividualbehavior `  (violentlyresistingarrest)orpriorrecord(armedassaults).If   suchanindividualevaluationwerenecessaryineverycase,this h mightdoomanefficientclassaction. d  ` Bothdistrictcourtssoughttofinessetheissueby  definingtheclasstoincludeonlythosewhoweresearchedwithout l evaluationforindividualizedsuspicion.Nilsen,219F.R.D.at25 h ("withoutevaluatingforindividualizedreasonablesuspicion");  Tardiff,218F.R.D.at336("withoutevaluationforindividualized p  reasonablesuspicion").Thisisnotacompleteanswer;forone !l" thing,atsomepointinthecaseitcouldstillbenecessaryto "$ determineindividuallywhoamongthosewhoweresearchedwereso t$&  evaluated.  &p!(  ` Further,evenifallpersonssearchedbasedonindividual   evaluationswerereadilyexcludedfromtheclassregardlessofthe \ soundnessoftheevaluation,itmightstillbenecessary!atleast X insomecasestoconsiderwhetherindividualizedsuspicioncould   havejustifiedasearch.Evenifoverbroadcategorieswereused, `  thedefendantswilllikelyarguethattheresultwouldhavebeen  \  thesameforsomeclassmembersevenifproperindividualized   judgmentshadbeenmade!raisingalegalissueastoliabilityon d  whichweoffernoopinion.Compare42U.S.C.2000e5(g)(2)(B) `  (2000)(TitleVII'ssamedecisiondefenseastodamages).Ifthe   numberofsuchinstanceswaslarge,thefeasibilityofaclass h actionmightbecompromised. d  ` Withoutprejudgingdisputableissues,wethinkthatsuch  threatsofunduecomplicationsastoliabilityarelimitedinthis l case.Iftherewasinfactarule,customorpolicyofstrip h searchingeveryarresteeorasubstantiallyoverlargecategory,  thenitisafairguessthatmostarresteessoclassedwerestrip p  searchedonthisbasis.Theremightyetbesomenumberastowhom !l" defensibleindividualjudgmentstostripsearchwereactuallymade "$ orcouldhavebeenmade!twodifferentsituationswithdifferent t$& legalimplications;butwhoeverhastheburdenofidentifyingsuch  &p!( persons,theymaywellnotbenumerous.f  #  7       '#*  ` Determinationstocertifyaclassdependoninitial  predictionandarealwayssubjecttorevision.Gen.Tel.Co.of \ theS.W.v.Falcon,457U.S.147,160(1982);Smilow,323F.3dat X 3940;Mowbray,208F.3dat297n.6.Ifalargenumberofclass   membersturnouttopresentnoncommonissuesastoliability,the `  courtmayhavetoconsidernarrowingordecertifyingtheclass.  \  Mowbray,208F.3dat297n.2.Butacourtcanproceedbasedonits   reasonablebestguessastowhatwillhappenandwesharethe d  districtjudgesapparentviewthattheindividualizedsuspicion `  issuewillariseonlyinalimitednumberofcases,assumingalways   thatplaintiffscanestablishasabackgroundfacttheexistenceof h animproperlybroadstripsearchrule,policyorcustom.  d  ` Bycontrast,thepresenceofdamageclaimsdoesweigh  againstclassstatus.Incertaincases(e.g.,somesecurity l frauds),formuladamagesaregenerallyused.See3Conte& h Newberg,NewbergonClassActions10:8(4thed.2002).Hereeach  classmemberwronglystripsearchedcouldinprincipletestify p  separatelyastothecircumstances,emotionaldamage,lostwages, !l" medicaltreatment,doctorbills,andsoon.Indeed,theless "$  potenttheavailabledefenseonliability,themoretheclass t$& actionmightlooklikeabundleofindividualizeddamageclaims  whollyunsuitedforclassresolution. \   ` Yettheneedforindividualizeddamagedecisionsdoes X notordinarilydefeatpredominancewheretherearestilldisputed   commonissuesastoliability.Smilow,323F.3dat40.Ifthe `  classactionresolvedliabilityevenastosomefurthernarrowed  \  class,thiswouldbealegitimatefunction.Atthatpoint,the   courtwouldhavefurtheroptions,suchasanagreementonmodest d  uniformdamagesforthosenotclaimingspecialinjury,withmasters `  todeterminethe(potentiallyfew)seriousclaimstospecial   injury.E.g.,InreCorrugatedContainerAntitrustLitig.,80 h F.R.D.244(S.D.Tex.1978). d  ` Failingsomepracticalsolutionallowingfullresolution  ofallclassdamageclaimsinasinglecase,thecourtcouldenter l ajudgmentofliability,leavingclassmemberstopursuedamage h claimsinseparatelawsuits.Smilow,323F.3dat4041;accord.  Blihovdev.St.CroixCounty,219F.R.D.607,621(W.D.Wis.2003); p  Maneelyv.CityofNewburgh,208F.R.D.69,79(S.D.N.Y.2002) !l" (stripsearchcases).Inaddition,ifandwhenliabilityis "$ establishedandtheremainingdisputeisonlytheamountof t$& damages,itiscommonexperiencethatagreatmanyclaimssettle.  &p!(  ` Itremainstodiscussthesuperiorityvelnonofthe '#* classaction.Thecountiesinsistthatindividuallawsuitsare x)$, feasible.Wethinkthatonlythelimitednumberofcaseswhere $+t&. seriousdamageensuedwouldeverbebroughtwithoutclassstatus  andthatthevastmajorityofclaimswouldneverbebroughtunless \ aggregatedbecauseprovableactualdamagesaretoosmall.Thisis X aconventionalargumentforaclassaction,AmchemProds.,Inc.,v.   Windsor,521U.S.591,617(1997),anditapplieshere. `   ` Whetherthelawshouldencouragethebringingofvery  \  smallclaimsthatwouldotherwisenotbebroughtisadifferent   matter;lawsuitsservepurposesbeyondcompensation,andthe d  balanceofcostandbenefitdoubtlessvariesfromcasetocase.It `  isenoughforthesuperioritydeterminationherethatformost   stripsearchclaimants,classstatushereisnotonlythesuperior h means,butprobablytheonlyfeasibleone(onewaycollateral d estoppelaside),toestablishliabilityandperhapsdamages.E.g.,  Blihovde,219F.R.D.at622;Mackv.SuffolkCounty,191F.R.D.16, l 25(D.Mass.2000). h  ` Itfollowsthattheorderscertifyingtheclassactions  mustbesustainedatthisinitialstagewithoutprejudicetotheir p  furtheralteration.Infurtherproceedingsinthedistrictcourt, !l" littleweightshouldbegiventoourownglancingdiscussionofthe "$ merits;althoughnecessarybackgroundinreviewingthe t$& certificationorders,ourassessmentcanonlybepreliminary,  &p!( lackingthebenefitofafullerrecordandanalysesyettocome. '#*  ` Affirmed.