Corp., 1991 WL 222071 (E.D.Pa. Oct. 23, 1991), the court noted [d]efenses which the defendants could raise against the named plaintiff individually, such as reliance or damages, but not against the class will not defeat typicality. [Eisenberg, 766 F.2d at 786]. Where the named plaintiffs right to recover may ultimately be affected by a unique defense but it will not affect his ability to present the case on the liability of the defendants to the plaintiff class, his claim is not atypical____ Basically, this issue or [sic] reliance or lack thereof is a question of fact which is not appropriately resolved at this stage. It is a defense and can be raised when it is proper to raise a defense. Id. at *4; see also Zeffiro v. First Pa. Banking and Trust Co., 96 F.R.D. 567, 570 (E.D.Pa.1983) (<HOLDING>). After Eisenberg, however, which was decided
recognizing that where representative plaintiff and other members of class share an interest in prevailing on similar legal claims particular differences in amount of damages claimed or of availability of certain defenses against class representative may not render his or her claims atypical recognizing that authorized representative may be general or only for a certain claim holding that the claims of the class representative and class members must be based on the same legal or remedial theory holding that a a representative plaintiff acts as fiduciary for the others requiring the representative to act in the best interest of class holding that in class action the claim or defense of the representative party must be typical of the claim or defense of each member of the class