over eight million members from throughout the country, making joinder, consolidation, and intervention impracticable. Consequently, there appear to be no other available means to adjudicate this controversy and the class action device appears the only rational avenue of redress for many class members. b. Individual Plaintiffs Have Little Interest in Controlling the Prosecution of Separate Actions 95. Rule 23(b)(3) indicates that the first factor is “the interest of members of the class in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions.” The test is whether the interest of most class members in conducting separate lawsuits is so strong as to require denial of class certification. See, e.g., McClendon v. Continental Group, Inc., 113 F.R.D. 39, 45 (D.N.J.1986) (<HOLDING>). 96.Here, class members have little incentive
holding class action to be superior adjudication method where individual class members had no interest in controlling prosecution of individual actions holding that class action was superior to individual suits where class members had relatively small interests and might not have the wherewithal to bring suit to protect their individual rights holding class action superior where individual claims do not warrant separate suits holding that class action was superior to other methods of adjudication including multiplicity of duplicative individual lawsuits holding that a class action tolls the statute of limitations only for subsequent individual actions not for subsequent class actions