In Kight v. CashCall, Inc. 2014 WL 5573457 (2014), on remand from a prior appeal in the same case, the defendant successfully moved to decertify the plaintiff class that alleged eavesdropping on telephone calls by CashCall’s supervisors in violation of Penal Code 632.  The opinion on the earlier appeal established that an objective test is applied to determine whether a call is “confidential” and thus protected against eavesdropping under the statute.  However, in deciding that question, the court must consider all the circumstances surrounding not only that individual call but prior ones between the same parties.  That decision marked a substantial change in circumstances, since the court had certified the class on the plaintiff’s theory that the confidential nature of a call could be established without analysis of individual circumstances.  While motions to decertify should not be mere re-runs of prior unsuccessful oppositions, the trial court does retain authority to decertify a class after a significant change in circumstances. Also, decertifying the class did not offend the class-before-merits rule or one-way intervention rule.  That rule is not iron-clad.  It does not prevent post-merits decertification when there has been no gamesmanship but a later change in circumstances shows that individual issues will overwhelm any class trial. There is no need to show a “compelling justification” in addition to changed circumstances.  The trial court correctly determined that the need to analyze the circumstances of each call raised predominant individual questions that would render a class trial unmanageable.  Those questions could not be circumvented by sending class members a questionnaire, since defendant was entitled to cross-examine each class member about those circumstances.