Rule 23(a)(3) requires that “each class member’s claim arises from the same course of events and each class member makes similar legal arguments to prove the defendant’s liability.” Robidoux, 987 F.2d at 936. Known as the typicality requirement, this provision is meant to ensure that the class representative is not subject to a unique defense which could potentially become the focus of the litigation. Vengurlekar, 220 F.R.D. at 227. However, “[w]hen it is alleged that the same unlawful conduct was directed at or affected both the named plaintiff and the class sought to be represented, the typicality requirement is usually met irrespective of minor variations in the fact patterns underlying individual claims.” Robidoux, 987 F.2d at 936-937; see also Vengurlekar, 220 F.R.D. at 227 (<HOLDING>) (citations and internal quotation marks
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 it is error to certify class when named class representatives are not members of the class they purport to represent holding that the mere existence of individualized factual questions with respect to the class representatives claim will not bar class certification holding that individualized questions concerning the defendants responsibility for diminished sales prices of class members bonds predominated over any common questions rendering class certification inappropriate 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