as a class action). Next, when defendants tender relief to named plaintiffs while a Motion for Class Certification is pending before the trial court, the general rule is that the mootness of the individual claim requires dismissal of the entire action. See DeCoteau, 636 N.W.2d at 437 ("When a named plaintiff’s individual claim becomes moot before a class has been properly certified or certification has been denied, courts generally hold a dismissal of the action is required.”); see also Brunet, 1 F.3d at 399; Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 975 F.2d 964, 975 (3d Cir.1992). Some courts observe that this general rule may not apply when a tender comes while plaintiffs diligently pursue a pending motion for class certification. See Susman v. Lincoln Am. Corp., 587 F.2d 866, 870 (7th Cir.1978) (<HOLDING>); see also Holmes v. Pension Plan of Bethlehem
holding that district court has discretion under appropriate circumstances to rule on summary judgment motion before addressing pending class certification motion 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 under wilkerson it was error for district court to deny class action certification motion of named plaintiffs whose claims were resolved after filing motion for class certification but before district court decided motion holding that a class action may continue even though the claim of the named plaintiff has become moot holding that when a motion for class certification has been pursued with reasonable diligence and is then pending before the district court a case does not become moot merely because of the tender to the named plaintiffs of their individual money damages