must demonstrate to show that their claims are typical of a broader set of claims alleged. See General Tel. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 102 S.Ct. 2364, 72 L.Ed.2d 740 (1982). The named plaintiff must be part of the class, possess the same interest as the other class members, and suffer the same injury as other class members. See id. at 156,102 S.Ct. at 2369-70. Where the named plaintiff alleges multiple claims on behalf of the class, that plaintiff must possess the same injury and suffer the same generic type of harm as other class members. See id. at 159, 102 S.Ct. at 2371. The injury need not necessarily arise from identical factual circumstances that gave rise to the injuries of class members. See Grasty v. Amalgamated Clothing & Textile Workers Union, 828 F.2d 123, 131 (3d Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1042, 108 S.Ct. 773,
recognizing a narrow class of cases in which the termination of the class representatives claim for relief does not moot the claims of the class members holding that it is not necessary that all putative class members share identical claims holding typicality requirement satisfied because named plaintiffs claims stemmed from same legal theory as class claims notwithstanding fact that class purchased tickets at different prices according to different terms holding that it is error to certify class when named class representatives are not members of the class they purport to represent holding typicality satisfied where named plaintiffs did not share all of the claims of the class but the claims alleged appeared to stem from a single course of conduct by which the defendant failed to represent its members fairly and effectively