to eliminate the waste of judicial resources caused by duplica-tive individual actions. Third, the individual actions will not adjudicate the controversy that underlies this class action litigation; rather, each would only resolve the individual claims of a minute portion of the class. d.To Concentrate this Litigation in New Jersey Is Desirable 101. Rule 23(b)(3) indicates that the third factor to be considered in assessing whether the class action device is superior to other means of adjudication is “the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum.” The factor emphasizes the desirability of the forum selected, not the desirability of claims concentration generally. See 1 Newberg § 4.31, at 4-123; Bentkowski, 70 F.R.D. at 405 (<HOLDING>). 102. In this case, plaintiffs’ claims are
holding that when majority of class lived in new jersey maryland pennsylvania and virginia the eastern district of pennsylvania was a desirable forum holding that pennsylvania law applied as the parties did not argue choice of law issue and implied that pennsylvania law applied by focusing their arguments on same recognizing that pennsylvania had no interest in denying its residents the greater damages available under new jersey consumer fraud statutes for claims against a new jersey seller holding pennsylvania replevin statute unconstitutional holding that we are required to predict the position which the pennsylvania supreme court would take in resolving this dispute  and in the absence of a clear statement by the pennsylvania supreme court to the contrary or other persuasive evidence of a change in pennsylvania law we are bound by the holdings of previous panels of this court