putative class members have an interest in speedy resolution of class certification issues. As we noted in our second disposition of this case, In opt-in class actions, with their similarities to bills of peace, permissive joinders and intervention and their accompanying tolling problems, it is of the utmost importance that the decision on class status be made promptly so that the class members know whether to accept the “invitation to come in” or look out for themselves. Lusardi v. Lechner, 855 F.2d 1062, 1069 (3d Cir.1988). Were named plaintiffs allowed to re-raise settled class certification issues at any time, even after their individual claims settled, the status of putative class members would remain fluid and uncertain. Cf. Jeff D. v. Andrus, 899 F.2d 753, 758 (9th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). Particularly in the context of a complex
holding that once district court entered order approving the settlement of class claims it could not alter the class in the absence of egregious error 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 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 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 it is error to certify class when named class representatives are not members of the class they purport to represent