is substantial ground for difference of opinion and is unpersuaded by plaintiffs’ arguments to revise this conclusion. Plaintiffs’ case for reconsideration relies primarily on the contention that the question is not controlling because “First National Bank of Nevada ([ ]FNBN[ ]) originated loans in both of the trusts at issue herein, thereby creating a common set of ‘concerns’ which conferred standing on Plumbers’ Union Local No. 12 to sue on both trusts.” Pis.’ Mot. at 2. This argument, nowhere found in plaintiffs’ briefing in opposition to defendants’ Renewed Motion to Dismiss, is flatly contradicted by the First Circuit’s previous ruling on standing in this case. See Plumbers’ Union Local No. 12 Pension Fund v. Nomura Asset Acceptance Corp., 632 F.3d 762, 770-771 (1st Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>). As defendants point out, “[plaintiffs have
holding that after a class is certified the controversy may exist  between a named defendant and a member of the class represented by the named plaintiff even though the claim of the named plaintiff has become moot holding that courts should consider the merits of the litigants claims the nature of the factual issues the litigants ability to present his claims and the complexity of the legal issues holding that a statute is not vague where the words themselves  possess a common and generally accepted meaning recognizing the possibility of an exception to the requirement that named plaintiffs must themselves possess claims against each defendant but concluding that in our case  the necessary identity of issues and alignment of incentives is not present holding that the function of the trial court on a motion for summary judgment is to determine whether issues of fact exist and not to decide the merits of the issues themselves