with the individual issues present here. If the individual damages issues raised with respect to Plaintiffs’ (b)(3) class could be resolved through a mathematical formula or through consulting identical written records applicable to each class member, a claims process might be appropriate. In re Genetically Modified Rice Litig., 251 F.R.D. 392, 398 (E.D.Mo.2008) (stating that “[o]rdinarily, variation in individual damage amounts is not a bar to class certification,” but that “class certification may not be suitable where the calculation of damages is not susceptible to a mathematical or formulaic calculation ....”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Local Joint Executive Bd. of Culinary/Bartender Trust Fund v. Las Vegas Sands, Inc., 244 F.3d 1152, 1163 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Here, however, there are potentially endless
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 holding that the predominance requirement was satisfied where determination of each class members damages involved a straightforward calculation of which days and how many hours they  worked as well as a review of the defendants written records keeping track of class members earnings holding that class certification is not appropriate because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the calculation of individualized actual economic damages if any suffered by the class members can be performed in accordance with the predominance requirement of rule 23b3 holding that entry of settlement decree without notice to putative class members violated the due process rights of the class members holding that it is error to certify class when named class representatives are not members of the class they purport to represent