Opinion ID: 357378
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Adequacy of Class Representation

Text: 16 No question is raised about the ability and willingness of the named plaintiffs fairly and adequately to protect the interests of the class, but the defendants do question the plaintiffs' ability to finance the litigation. 4 Their counsel are qualified and experienced. Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin (Eisen II), 2 Cir. 1968, 391 F.2d 555, 562. The only major cost to be advanced before it is determined whether or not the defendant is liable is that of a class notice. See Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 1978, --- U.S. ----, 98 S.Ct. 2380, 57 L.Ed.2d 253. The postage for such a notice, if individual mailing is required, would be about $15,000. Counsel properly offered to advance that sum looking to the named plaintiffs for repayment if required. Their clients offered a note and mortgage on realty as security. Counsel has also offered to give a bond to guarantee that the notice costs will be met. The sufficiency of such action has been established, Sayre v. Abraham Lincoln Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n, E.D.Pa.1974, 65 F.R.D. 379, Modified, E.D.Pa.1975, 69 F.R.D. 117; Halverson v. Convenient Food Mart, Inc., 7 Cir. 1972, 458 F.2d 927, 931 n. 7. 17 Neither the satisfaction nor denial of the individual plaintiffs' claims, if effective, necessarily precludes their serving as adequate representatives. We have permitted representatives to serve the class despite adjudications determining that their individual claims are not viable If they are members of the class and maintain an adequate nexus with it. Long v. Sapp, 5 Cir. 1974, 502 F.2d 34; Huff v. N.D Cass Co. of Ala., 5 Cir. 1973, 485 F.2d 710, 712-714 (En banc ). See Gelman v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 3 Cir. 1977, 556 F.2d 699, 701; Satterwhite v. City of Greenville, 5 Cir. 1978, 578 F.2d 987, 993 n. 8, approving this jurisprudence and distinguishing East Texas Motor Freight System, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 1977, 431 U.S. 395, 97 S.Ct. 1891, 52 L.Ed.2d 453, on the basis that the named representatives in that case were not members of the class at the time the suit was filed nor at the time of the certification decision. The relevant inquiry is whether the plaintiffs maintain a sufficient interest in, and nexus with, the class so as to ensure vigorous representation. The defendant's decision to confess judgment has not affected the vigor with which plaintiffs have pursued the class claims, and we find no basis for concluding that they have not satisfied the requirements of Rule 23(a)(4).