general election. Such campaigning varied in terms of degree, but most of the named plaintiffs testified that they circulated petitions, made posters and generally aided in the campaign effort. Several of the named plaintiffs have asserted pendent state law claims alleging that as honorably discharged veterans who served in the armed forces during wartime they were entitled to special protection under New York’s Civil Service Law. Due to the differences not only in terms of proof, but also in causes of action, the court will address each of the plaintiffs’ claims separately. Following this determination the court will examine plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. See East Texas Motor Freight System, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395, 403, 97 S.Ct. 1891, 1896, 52 L.Ed.2d 453 (1977) (<HOLDING>). Marion Sciortino Goodwin Plaintiff Marion
holding that a class plaintiff who seeks to assert statutory rights to protect a class of which he is a member is not asserting rights antagonistic to any members of that class holding that it is error to certify class when named class representatives are not members of the class they purport to represent holding that putative class members are not parties to an action prior to class certification 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 putative class representatives had standing to represent the class even when they owned stock for only part of lengthy class period because they alleged a common course of conduct to defraud over that entire period including the period during which they owned stock