The rule resolved that controversy "by indicating that uniform treatment be accorded to judgments in all class actions." Federal Practice and Procedure, supra, § 1789, at 550. In short, those identified in the manners called for in the rule ordinarily will be bound by the judgment. Therefore, C.R.CP. 23(0)(8) is merely an aid for identifying persons bound by a class action judgment; it does not impose a requirement that, if unsatisfied, precludes the entry of a final judgment. Indeed, "[the failure to specify the members of the class at the time the judgment is entered is not a fatal error ... and the case can be remanded to remedy the defect." Federal Practice and Procedure, swpra, § 1789, at 551; see also Vaughter v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 817 F.2d 685, 689 (11th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); Harmsen v. Smith, 693 F.2d 932, 942 (9th
recognizing that the procedural defect could be corrected through a reinstatement of the termination proceedings holding that a public employee who can be discharged only for cause is entitled to at least some informal due process before he can be terminated holding that in certain circumstances fraud can be prosecuted under the statute holding that in an action for breach of contract only nominal damages can be recovered if there is no evidence produced from which the facts necessary to determine damages under the proper rule can be determined holding such an oversight can be corrected under fedrcivp 602