In an attempt to settle the many coordinated suits by local governmental entities against drug companies, doctors and others about over-prescribing opiod drugs, the district certified a “negotiation class” of all cities and counties for the sole purpose of attempting to negotiate a settlement to the litigation.  This decision holds that the certification was in error.  Rule 23 allows litigation classes and settlement classes, the latter being classes certified after a settlement has been reached.  The rule does not authorize a class to be certified solely for the purpose of negotiating a settlement in the future.  Furthermore, this class could not satisfy Rule 23 predominance and superiority criteria.  The district judge tried to find predominance by addressing only a few federal law claims alleged in the individual suits, and ignored the many state and local law claims the suits also alleged, though authorizing the negotiation class to attempt to settle those claims as well.  And the district court allowed individual suits to progress while the negotiation class attempted to settle, losing the benefit of consolidating the litigation while also potentially depriving individual local governmental entities of their interest in pursuing their own litigation individually.