all of which would render uneconomical an individual suit by a single disgruntled customer. As one treatise states: “[I]ndividual actions or a test case may be an inferior alternative to the class action when the economics of the situation make it impossible for the aggrieved members to vindicate their rights by separate actions.” 7A Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1778 (Supp.1983). See Riley, supra, 61 N.J. at 225 [294 A.2d 7]. In a case in which the proofs regarding the defendant’s conduct will be identical whether or not a class action is certified, and the maintenance of a test case may be prohibitively expensive for an individual consumer, the class action emerges as the superior method of adjudication. See Werfel v. Kramarsky, 61 F.R.D. 674 (S.D.N.Y.1974) (<HOLDING>). By contrast, the common issues in Katz [v.
holding that because no class was certified at the time the individual claims were dismissed the class action was properly dismissed 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 that a district of columbia consumer protection statute that authorized representative actions and did not reference class action requirements or mandate class certification was a separate and distinct procedural vehicle from a class action and thus did not constitute a class action under cafa holding class action superior where individual claims do not warrant separate suits