. “If, upon considering the record, the court finds that the criteria for and goals of class certification are no longer being met, [a] motion for class decertification should be granted.” Barkouras v. Hecker, No. 06-0366, 2007 WL 4545896, at *1 (D.N.J. Dec. 19, 2007) (internal quotations marks omitted). Decertification is particularly warranted where there are changes in the substantive or procedural law, Martinez-Santiago v. Pub. Storage, 331 F.R.D. 94, 101 (D.N.J. 2019)) or “subsequent facts call into question whether continued class action treatment is proper[,]” Bayshore Ford Truck, 2010 WL 415329, at *2; see also In re Processed Egg Prod. Antitrust Litig., No. 08-MD-2002, 2017 WL 3494221, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 14, 2017) (“Generally, class decertification is prompted by a change in factual circumstances or developments in applicable substantive or procedural law.”).
. “If, upon considering the record, the court finds that the criteria for and goals of class certification are no longer being met, [a] motion for class decertification should be granted.” Barkouras v. Hecker, 2007 WL 4545896, at *1 (D.N.J. Dec. 19, 2007) (internal quotations and citation omitted).
"If, upon considering the record, the court finds that the criteria for and goals of class certification are no longer being met, [a] motion for class decertification should be granted." Barkouras v. Hecker, 2007 WL 4545896, at *1 (D.N.J. Dec. 19, 2007) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Decertification is particularly warranted where "[c]hanges in the substantive or procedural law," Alberton v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., 299 F.R.D. 109, 113 (E.D. Pa. 2014), or "subsequent facts call into question whether continued class action treatment is proper," Bayshore Ford Truck v. Ford Motor Co., 2010 WL 415329, at *2 (D.N.J. Jan. 29, 2010).