(W.D.Pa.1976) (Gourley, J.)(“Adequacy of the representative is of monumental importance since representation demands undiluted loyalty to the class interests _”). The Tenth Circuit has identified two questions relevant to the adequacy-of-representation inquiry: (i) whether the named plaintiffs and their counsel have any conflicts with other class members; and (ii) whether the named plaintiffs and their counsel will vigorously prosecute the action on behalf of the class. See Rutter & Wilbanks Carp. v. 276, 1280 (11th Cir.2000) (Barkett, J.)(finding that representation was inadequate where the class included those “who claim harm from the very acts from which other class members benefitted”); Broussard v. Meineke Disc. Muffler Shops, Inc., 155 F.3d 331, 344 (4th Cir.1998) (Wilkinson, J.)(<HOLDING>); Alston v. Va. High Sch. League, Inc., 184
holding that the current franchisees who had an interest in the continued viability of the franchiser had an inherent conflict with former franchisees whose interest was only in the maximization of damages holding that prejudice is only presumed if there is proof of an actual conflict of interest holding that former municipal judge did not have property interest in continued employment holding that plaintiffs had no vested interest in former interpretation of state law holding that franchisor who sued franchisees had not invoked the judicial process for purposes of a subsequent dispute