exercise jurisdiction over passengers who were not residents of Pennsylvania, the numerosity requirement has not been met. This is completely contrary to the court’s ruling in Janick, supra. The court stated: “Our Supreme Court has held that a common pleas court may exercise jurisdiction over absent class members who are Pennsylvania residents, as well as those non-residents who submit themselves to its jurisdiction”. Defendants further assert that because only one formal action has been commenced against Cunard, there is a lack of interest among class members. However, there is no provision under the class action laws requiring that a minimum number of claims be received before certification will be granted. See e.g. Simon v. Cunard Line Limited, 75 A.D.2d 283, 428 N.Y.S.2d 952 (1980) (<HOLDING>). Even so, Cunard’s own records reveal that
holding need certification filed after information returned was timely because the statute includes no deadline for filing a certification  and no court has imposed one holding that a large number of formal complaints was not necessary to certification especially where all the passengers were on one ship suffering common complaints holding that the complaints of a public employee about a reorganization plan were on a matter of public concern even though the employee was primarily motivated by the adverse effect of the plan on himself holding in part that complaints focused on individual compensation do not involve a matter of public concern holding that private complaints by public employee that his responsibilities were being lessened and his recommendations were not being followed were at least for the most part not on a matter of public concern