of the class with small individual claims, the costs of litigation and lack of notice would mean that small or unsophisticated claimants would go unprotected. It must be remembered that Rule 23(b)(3)’s superiority requirement expressly compares class actions “to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.” ... When the claims of the class members are small, denial of a class action would effectively exclude them from judicial redress. 1 Newberg § 4.27, at 4-107 to 4-109 (emphasis in original). The class action device may allow plaintiffs “to pool claims which would be uneconomical to litigate individually.” Phillips Petroleum Co., 472 U.S. at 809, 105 S.Ct. at 2973; see MacNeal v. Columbine Exploration Corp., 123 F.R.D. 181, 187-88 (E.D.Pa.1988) (<HOLDING>). 93. Additionally, as a class increases in
holding that a class plaintiff who seeks to assert statutory rights to protect a class of which he is a member is not asserting rights antagonistic to any members of that class holding class action superior where individual claims do not warrant separate suits holding that class action was superior to individual suits where class members had relatively small interests and might not have the wherewithal to bring suit to protect their individual rights holding class action to be superior adjudication method where individual class members had no interest in controlling prosecution of individual actions holding that putative class members are not parties to an action prior to class certification