See New Cingular Wireless Servs., 232 F.R.D. at 300 (rejecting an argument that a class representative was inadequate because he could not show that he “recall[ed] the terms of a settlement for a case he was previously involved in, or that he was aware that his attorneys had filed certain motions in the current case”). Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Murray’s involvement in the litigation weighs in favor of finding him an adequate class representative. E*Trade also argues that Murray lacks sufficient understanding of the issues involved in his FCRA suit. A class representative, however, is not required to understand the intricacies of the suit. See Margolis v. Caterpillar, Inc., 815 F.Supp.1150, 1154 (C.D.Ill.1991); New Cingular Wireless Servs., 232 F.R.D. at 300 (<HOLDING>); Cavin, 236 F.R.D. at 394 (same). It is enough
holding that the mere existence of individualized factual questions with respect to the class representatives claim will not bar class certification holding that class representatives cannot appear pro se holding that a class representatives ignorance of the case is not a bar to certification unless it impairs the representatives ability to vigorously prosecute the action holding that awards of 2500 to majority of representatives and 5000 to deposed representatives were inappropriate where representatives had borne little risk by participating in litigation and provided services that could have been provided by any other class member recognizing that the number of class representatives is not significant under rule 23a