that the Keys pursue every claim that they possess on behalf of the class. And no rule precludes the Keys from deciding not to pursue de minimis damage claims on behalf of the class. See Bowden, 247 S.W.3d at 697. Moreover, any potential class members having allegedly suffered mental-anguish damages by virtue of their dealings with LSRC would have known of LSRC’s mental-anguish-causing conduct and likely would have pursued their own claims, as the Reyeltses did. If few class members' have filed individual suits, a court may conclude that the members do not possess strong interests in controlling their own litigation; this lack of individual lawsuits supports a finding of superiority. See, e.g., Schuler v. Meds. Co., No.:14-1149 (CCC), 2016 WL 3457218, at *5 (D.N.J. June 24, 2016) (<HOLDING>); In re PE Corp. Sec. Litig., 228 F.R.D. 102,
holding superiority requirement satisfied in part because the record in this case does not indicate an interest among class members in individually controlling the prosecution of separate actions holding class action to be superior adjudication method where individual class members had no interest in controlling prosecution of individual actions holding that entry of settlement decree without notice to putative class members violated the due process rights of the class members holding that members of a class proceeding under the consumer protection act need not individually prove reliance on the alleged misrepresentations footnote omitted it is sufficient if the class can establish that a reasonable person would have relied on the representation 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