Cir.2002) (finding an absence of typicality where the "named claimants had not suffered 'injurfies] similar to the injuries suffered by the other class members' ”) (quoting McClain v. South Carolina Nat'l Bank, 105 F.3d 898, 903 (4th Cir.1997)). 19 . Oshana v. Coca-Cola Co., 472 F.3d 506, 514 (7th Cir.2006). 20 . Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(4). 21 . Baffa v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Secs. Corp., 222 F.3d 52, 60 (2d Cir.2000) (citing In re Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc., 960 F.2d 285, 291 (2d Cir.1992)). 22 . Id. at 61 (quoting Maywalt v. Parker & Parsley Petroleum Co., 67 F.3d 1072, 1077-78 (2d Cir. 1995)). 23 . Id. (citing Surowitz v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 383 U.S. 363, 370-74, 86 S.Ct. 845, 15 L.Ed.2d 807 (1966)). Accord Noble v. 93 Univ. Place Corp., 224 F.R.D. 330, 344 (S.D.N.Y.2004) (<HOLDING>). 24 . In re IPO Sec. Litig., 471 F.3d 24, 30
holding that an action concerning the application of the omitted spouse statute was an action at law holding class action to be superior adjudication method where individual class members had no interest in controlling prosecution of individual actions holding that facilitating small claims is the policy at the very core of the class action mechanism holding that inflexible application of the adequacy requirement runs counter to a principal objective of the class action mechanism  to facilitate recovery for those least able to pursue an individual action holding that the right of all putative members of a proposed class in an action filed pursuant to kansass class action rule of civil procedure to file a separate action is preserved pending the determination of whether the initial case shall be maintained as a class action