Task: Text Completion
Input (English): H & J’s individual claims to proceed. Nextel then moved to strike H & J’s individual claims arguing that H & J did not sustain any injuries because H & J’s account with Nex-tel had been disconnected for nonpayment prior to the discontinuation of analog service and that H & J no longer needed the equipment because H & J went out of business. The trial court granted the motion. Thereafter, H & J moved for reinstatement as class representative alleging that the criminal matter that required it to assert its Fifth Amendment privilege had been resolved, and therefore, it was able to give full discovery. The trial court denied the motion. Nextel also renewed a prior motion for summary judgment as to Asphalt arguing that Asphalt had no contract with Nextel. Next .R.D. 442, 444 (S.D.N.Y.1988)(<HOLDING>); Broin v. Philip Morris Cos., 641 So.2d 888, 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that the primary issue to be considered in whether the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class is a determination of whether any antagonism exists between the interests of the plaintiffs and those of the remainder of the class (B) holding that where adequately supported credibility findings are for the alj to make (C) holding that president of association of minority prisoners would not fairly and adequately protect interests of class even though intelligent enough to represent himself (D) holding that serious credibility problems a factor in determining whether plaintiff can fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class (E) holding that additional consideration is a factor in determining whether there is an implied contract of employment
Output (English): (D)