That argument directly contradicts controlling authority issued by the Ninth Circuit earlier this year, and defendant's failure to address the same is borderline sanctionable. See Burke v. Pitney Bowes, Inc. Long-Term Disability Plan, No. 04-CV-4483, 2005 WL 1876103, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2005) ("[T]he fact that plaintiff's counsel failed to cite such adverse controlling authority raises serious questions concerning his compliance with his ethical obligations as a member of the bar."). On January 3, 2017, the Ninth Circuit held that "Rule 23 does not impose a freestanding administrative feasibility prerequisite to class certification," rejecting the line of authority upon which defendant relies for the proposition that a threshold, ascertainability requirement exists.