Union, Local 535, Serv. Emps. Int'l Union, AFL-CIO v. Cnty. of Santa Clara, 609 F.2d 944, 949 (9th Cir.1979). The Court considers Defendants’ arguments with respect to Edwards and her counsel separately. a. The Adequacy of Edwards as Named Plaintiff Defendants’ argument that Edwards is inadequate is primarily based on Edwards’s testimony in an unrelated bankruptcy proceeding. Rule 23(a)(4) requires that “the representative parties fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(4). This requirement ensures that the named plaintiff and his or her counsel will pursue each class member’s claim with sufficient “vigor.” Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1021 (9th Cir.1998); see also Crawford v. Honig, 37 F.3d 485, 487 (9th Cir.1994) (citations omitted) (<HOLDING>). As previously stated by this Court, however,
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 the fair and adequate representation requirement was not satisfied because of litigation between plaintiff and defendant the antagonism between the parties and the lack of support plaintiff garnered in its claim holding that ajdequate representation depends on the qualifications of counsel for the representatives an absence of antagonism a sharing of interests between representatives and absentees and the unlikelihood that the suit is collusive recognizing that the number of class representatives is not significant under rule 23a 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