is determined through a fairly regularized and rigid scheme that downplays individual distinctions — matters which are susceptible of proof through evidence common to the class — it may reasonably be inferred that all or nearly all of the members of the RN class will be adversely impacted by the alleged conspiracy, even if the pay scales of the Defendant hospitals do not move in lock-step with one another, and even if there are significant differences in the overall compensation received by individual class members. See Messner, 669 F.3d at 819 (“By requiring uniformity of nominal price increases within and across contracts, the district court misread Rule 23(b)(3) to require a greater showing of common evidence than is contemplated by that rule.”); Hydrogen Peroxide, 552 F.3d at 325 (<HOLDING>); Urethane Antitrust Litigation, 251 F.R.D. at
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 to maintain a class action the existence of the class must be pleaded and the limits of the class must be defined with some specificity 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 that a conspiracy to maintain prices could in theory impact the entire class despite a decrease in prices for some customers in parts of the class period and despite some divergence in the prices different plaintiffs paid holding typicality requirement satisfied because named plaintiffs claims stemmed from same legal theory as class claims notwithstanding fact that class purchased tickets at different prices according to different terms