Oil Co., 314 F.3d 1180, 1187-88 (10th Cir.2002) (Anderson, J.). In considering this second question, the attorney’s experience and competence may inform the court’s analysis. See Lopez v. City of Santa Fe, 206 F.R.D. at 289-90. The Supreme Court “has repeatedly held [that] a class representative must be part of the class and ‘possess the same interest and suffer the same injury’ as the class mem bers.” E. Tex. Motor Freight Sys. Inc. v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395, 403, 97 S.Ct. 1891, 52 L.Ed.2d 453 (1977) (quoting Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208, 216, 94 S.Ct. 2925, 41 L.Ed.2d 706 (1974)). Courts have found that intraclass conflicts “may negate adequacy under Rule 23(a)(4).” Langbecker v. Elec. Data Sys. Corp., 476 F.3d 299, 315 (5th Cir.2007) (Jones, J.)(<HOLDING>). See Pickett v. Iowa Beef Processors, 209 F.3d
holding that district court abused its discretion in certifying class in light of the individ ual calculation of damages that is required holding that the district court erred in certifying a class without evaluating intraclass conflicts holding that section 51014a3 conferred jurisdiction over complaints about notice and class size only because the trial court disposed of those issues in its order certifying the class 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 the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class but suggesting that prior to trial the district court ensure that appropriate subclasses are identified