Windham v. Am. Brands, Inc., 565 F.2d 59, 62-65 (4th Cir.1977) (affirming denial of class certification in an antitrust action where the relevant product [tobacco] came in a variety of grades and was non-fungible); Alaska as Parens Patriae v. Suburban Propane Gas Corp., No. A93-291 CIV (JWS), 1995 WL 441987, at *8 (D.Alaska Jan.12, 1995) (denying class certification where the relevant product had varying uses and some putative class members had available substitutes for some of the uses). 19 . See, e.g., Burkhalter Travel Agency, 141 F.R.D. at 154 (denying class certification because, inter alia, "defendants price nuts in different ways and purchasers have varying degrees of leverage over defendants”). 20 . See Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharm., Inc., 350 F.3d 1181, 1195 (11th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). 21 . Id. 22 . Id. 23 . id. 24 . 198 F.R.D. at
holding that the claims of the class representative and class members must be based on the same legal or remedial theory holding that the antitrust claims of disparate groups distributors of vitamins and producers of endproducts incorporating vitamins could not be mixed together where the interests of the class representatives and some class members were significantly different 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