Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): claims makes them amenable to class action litigation, the geographical location of the class members is Texas, and the likelihood that class members would be unable to prosecute individual lawsuits because most do not know of the existence of the causes of action accruing to them as a result of LSRC’s unlicensed-public-adjuster status—all weigh in favor of class certification. The Keys satisfied rule 42(a)’s numerosity requirement. See, e.g., Durrett v. John Deere Co., 150 F.R.D. 555, 557 (N.D. Tex. 1993) (“Because the estimate of potential class members ranges as high as 14,000, the Court has no difficulty concluding that a class certified in this cause would satisfy the numerosity requirement”); Zeidman v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., 651 F.2d 1030, 1038 (6th Cir. 1981) (<HOLDING>); Phillips v. J. Legis. Comm., 637 F.2d 1014, 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing a narrow class of cases in which the termination of the class representatives claim for relief does not moot the claims of the class members (B) recognizing that in determining numerosity the proper focus is not on numbers alone but on whether joinder of all members is practicable in view of the numerosity of the class and all other relevant factors (C) holding that in class action the claim or defense of the representative party must be typical of the claim or defense of each member of the class (D) recognizing that in determining numerosity courts must consider the geographical dispersion of the class the ease with which class members may be identified the nature of the action and the size of each plaintiffs claim (E) holding that to maintain a class action the existence of the class must be pleaded and the limits of the class must be defined with some specificity
Output (English): holding that in class action the claim or defense of the representative party must be typical of the claim or defense of each member of the class