claims must retain a “continuing interest in the litigation” in order to appeal a denial of class certification. Potter v. Norwest Mortgage, Inc., 329 F.3d 608, 613-14 (8th Cir.2003). We emphasized that a stipulation in a settlement agreement, by which a plaintiff reserves the right to appeal the denial of certification, is not sufficient in and of itself to satisfy Article III. Id. at 614 n. 3. Rather, we said that when individual claims are fully satisfied, the court of appeals, in determining whether a case or controversy remains, “need only address whether [the plaintiff] retains an interest in shifting costs and attorney fees to the putative class members.” Id. at 614. But cf. Cameron-Grant v. Maxim Healthcare Servs., Inc., 347 F.3d 1240, 1246-47 (11th Cir.2003) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). Here, applying Potter, we see no continuing
holding that a class action may continue even though the claim of the named plaintiff has become moot holding that it is error to certify class when named class representatives are not members of the class they purport to represent holding that a named plaintiffs appeal was not moot despite the absence of any economic interest in shifting costs or attorneys fees because the plaintiff had a personal stake in pursuing his procedural right to represent a class holding that after a class is certified the controversy may exist  between a named defendant and a member of the class represented by the named plaintiff even though the claim of the named plaintiff has become moot holding trial court erred in awarding attorneys fees to physicians in absence of any evidence of attorneys fees