885 F.Supp. 537, 559-60 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (finding that plaintiffs presented “colorable claim for medical monitoring as injunctive relief’ in suit against landlords for failure to remove lead paint); In re Copley Pharmaceutical, Inc., 161 F.R.D. 456, 469 (D.Wyo.1995) (noting medical monitoring remedy is equitable); In re Telectronics Pacing Sys., Inc., 164 F.R.D. 222, 229 (S.D.Ohio 1995); Day v. NLO, 851 F.Supp. 869 (S.D.Ohio 1994) (certifying medical monitoring class under 23(b)(2) in suit brought by employees of nuclear weapons plant for exposure to radiation); In re NLO, Inc., 5 F.3d 154, 159 (6th Cir.1993) (Case law “generally supports] the proposition that such relief [medical monitoring] is injunctive in nature.”); Yslava v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 845 F.Supp. 705, 713 (D.Ariz.1993) (<HOLDING>); Barth v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 673
holding that plaintiffs request for courtsupervised program requiring ongoing elaborate medical monitoring of class members exposed to contaminated groundwater qualified as injunctive relief and the court could properly certify the class under rule 23b2 holding that it is error to certify class when named class representatives are not members of the class they purport to represent holding that in rule 23b2 action seeking injunctive and declaratory relief class members do not need to be so clearly identified that they can be presently ascertained holding that rule 23b2 calls for injunction as to all class members or to none of them and does not authorize class certification when each class member would be entitled to an individualized award of monetary damages 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