at 1228 n. 25 (noting other circuits’ disagreement with Wilkerson and stating that “we remain willing, not to mention bound, to stand by our past decisions, even the lonely ones with which other courts have disagreed”). We therefore find that the named plaintiffs’ release from the PPS after the class certification motion was filed does not moot the claims of the class or render the named plaintiffs atypical or inadequate to represent the class. In addition, under the Supreme Court’s decision in Sosna, this case will not become moot after the class action is certified because a controversy between Defendants and a member of the class represented by the named plaintiffs is sufficient to satisfy Article III’s “ease or controversy” requirement. See Sosna, 419 U.S. at 401-402, 95 S.Ct. 553 (<HOLDING>). We therefore conclude that mootness will not
holding that a named plaintiff is not a proper class representative where it is predictable that a major focus of the litigation will be on an arguable defense unique to the named plaintiff or a small subclass holding that after a class is certified the controversy may exist  between a named defendant and a member of the class represented by the named plaintiff even though the claim of the named plaintiff has become moot holding that a class action is not mooted by the intervening resolution of the controversy as to the named plaintiffs holding that where named plaintiff was employee of class counsel district court did not abuse its discretion by denying class certification holding that a class action may continue even though the claim of the named plaintiff has become moot