Although this headline would appear to be a truism, some Ohio trial courts have needed reminding that class certification requires a bit of explanation. Gordon v. Erie Islands Resort & Marina, a case from Ohio’s 6th Appellate District, is the latest case in point. Plaintiffs brought a 19-count complaint against a resort, alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act and the Ohio Retail Installment Sales Act. The plaintiffs then moved for class certification under Ohio Rule of Civil Procedure 23, which the trial court granted in a two-paragraph decision. As the appeals court explained, the trial court reached its decision “[w]ithout elaborating as to the facts supporting each factor” for class certification. The appeals court reversed, explaining that “a trial court must conduct a rigorous analysis” of “each requirement” for class certification set forth in the recent Ohio Supreme Court case of Cullen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 137 Ohio St.3d 373 (2013). The lesson is an important one for class action litigants and Ohio’s lower courts; even though appellate courts review class certification decisions for abuse of discretion, a decision granting or denying class certification without a rigorous analysis as to each Cullen factor will likely be reversed “so that the trial court can elaborate as to its rationale for reaching its decision.”