Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): sufficient that the named representatives’ claims are representative of other class members. See Georgine, 83 F.3d at 631 (“presently injured class representatives cannot adequately represent the future plaintiffs’ interests and vice versa”); GM Trucks 55 F.2d at 801 (“[W]e must be concerned that the individual owners had no incentive to maximize the recovery of the government entities; they could skew the terms of the settlement to their own benefit.”); contrast Halderman v. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp., 612 F.2d 84, 109-110 (3d Cir.1979) (possible disagreement among class members as to appropriate relief is no bar to certification at the liability stage), rev’d on other grounds, 451 U.S. 1, 101 S.Ct. 1531, 67 L.Ed.2d 694 (1981); Link v. Mercedes-Benz, 788 F.2d 918, 929 (3d Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). 85. In this case, the named plaintiffs 
 Holding statements: (A) holding in suit against manufacturers and dealers for price fixing or repairs that fact that class members obtained repairs from different dealerships did not create antagonism to preclude finding of adequate representation (B) holding that entry of settlement decree without notice to putative class members violated the due process rights of the class members (C) holding that the fair and adequate representation requirement was not satisfied because of litigation between plaintiff and defendant the antagonism between the parties and the lack of support plaintiff garnered in its claim (D) holding that the state has interest apart from affected individuals in antitrust suit against railroads for price fixing that discriminated against georgia shippers (E) holding that putative class members are not parties to an action prior to class certification
Output (English): holding that putative class members are not parties to an action prior to class certification