On September 4, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied class certification of individual borrowers in a consolidated action against a national bank for allegedly mismanaging requests for HAMP modifications. In re Bank of Am. HAMP Contract Litig., No. 10-2193, 2013 WL 4759649 (D. Mass. Sept. 4, 2013). The named plaintiffs, who alleged breach of contract against the bank for issuing HAMP Trial Period Plans but then failing to provide a permanent modification or a timely written denial of eligibility, sought to certify 26 different classes, one from each state they represent. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to meet the predominance and superiority requirements of Rule 23(b) because their claims rely on numerous individual factual questions and “cannot sensibly be adjudicated on a classwide basis.” The court explained that individual questions predominate because borrowers’ claims require inquiry into each class members’ performance under the trial plans. Further, the court reasoned that class treatment would ignore those individual questions and deny the borrowers a fair trial on the merits of their claims, and determined that separate actions would more fairly and efficiently resolve the liability issues.