their complaint because they pled the claim that is the basis for the Affidavit Class. To set forth a claim for relief, a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). An action may be maintained as a class action if the prerequisites of and a ground for a class action are satisfied. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b). Accordingly, the Court holds that a complaint’s scope includes a class action claim if the complaint contains a short and plain statement of the claim forming the basis for the class action and pleads that the prerequisites of and a ground for a class action are satisfied with respect to that claim. See, e.g., Ladd v. Dairyland County Mut. Ins. Co. of Tex., 96 F.R.D. 335, 338 (N.D.Tex.1982)(<HOLDING>); Wilson v. Zarhadnick, 534 F.2d 55, 57 (5th
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 the amended complaint could not relate back to the original complaint in which all claims were barred by the statute of limitations holding that the claims of the class representative and class members must be based on the same legal or remedial theory holding equitable estoppel barred the plaintiffs claims because all of the claims of the amended complaint were in existence during the bankruptcy proceedings yet the plaintiff did not disclose any of the claims in its bankruptcy petitions plans of reorganization or disclosure statements holding that certain claims could not be a class issue in part because the complaint did not mention the claims