to support its policy of favoring the maintenance of class actions. King v. Kansas City S. Indus., Inc., 519 F.2d 20, 25-26 (7th Cir.1975). After certifying a class, the Court retains broad power to modify the definition of the class if it believes that the class definition is inadequate. BuycksRoberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 322, 328-29 (N.D.Ill.1995). II. Analysis Murray argues that the proposed class meets each of the four Rule 23(a) prerequisites and requests that the Court grant certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3). (R. 61, Pl.’s Mem. at 5-11) Although E*Trade refutes only the adequacy of Murray as class representative, the Court must consider whether Murray meets each requirement. Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 350 F.3d 1181, 1188 (11th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); see also New Cingular Wireless Servs., 232
holding that in the rule 23 class action context named plaintiff may appeal a denial of class certification even if his or her individual claims had been satisfied through the entry of judgment holding that where it is clear from the allegations on the face of the complaint that the party seeking class certification could prove no set of facts sufficient to satisfy the requirements of both civ r 23 a and civ r 23 b the trial court may deny a motion to certify made pursuant to civ r 23 c without first granting the movant an evidentiary hearing pursuant to civ r 23 c 1 holding that rule 23 applied even when the new york statute providing the cause of action prohibited class relief holding that class claims that fail to meet the requirements of rule 23 may be properly dismissed by granting a rule 12b6 motion holding that even if a defendant in a proposed class action does not seriously contest whether the rule 23 requirements have been met a court nevertheless has the responsibility of conducting its own inquiry as to whether the requirements of rule 23 have been satisfied in a particular case