to assert and defend the interests of the ... class” and “whether plaintiffs have interests antagonistic to those of the rest of the class.” Id. at 726 (internal quotations omitted). In fact, we went on to note that meeting these requirements might still be insufficient if the “named plaintiffs ... do not possess the personal characteristics and integrity necessary to fulfill the fiduciary role of class representative.” Id. This court has noted that “basic consideration of fairness requires that a court undertake a stringent and continuing examination of the adequacy of representation by the named class representative[ ] at all stages of the litigation where absent members will be bound by the court’s judgment.” Shroder v. Suburban Coastal Corp., 729 F.2d 1371, 1374 (11th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). In Susman v. Lincoln Am. Corp., 561 F.2d 86
holding that where named plaintiff was employee of class counsel district court did not abuse its discretion by denying class certification holding that named plaintiff who did not have a viable claim against defendant could not serve as a class representative and vacating class certification accordingly holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to certify class action when claims were so individualized that certification was improper holding that the district court abused its discretion by decertifying the class without permitting class counsel reasonable time to determine whether a new class representative could be substituted holding that under wilkerson it was error for district court to deny class action certification motion of named plaintiffs whose claims were resolved after filing motion for class certification but before district court decided motion