courts have recognized, the typicality and adequacy requirements of Rule 23(a) significantly overlap. See General Telephone Co. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 157 n. 13, 102 S.Ct. 2364, 2370 n. 13, 72 L.Ed.2d 740 (1982); 3B Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 23.06-2 at 23-169 (2d ed. 1993 & Supp.1994) (noting that “[t]he [Rule] (a)(3) requirement that claims or defenses be 'typical' has been equated with the requirement that the representative party must adequately represent the class, or with one of the elements usually considered as part of this adequacy requirement”) (citing cases). The Court will, however, engage in the analytical schema established by the Rules. 9 . Defendants allege there are only 25-30 purchasers who fit in this category. (See Defs.' Mem. in O 7 F.R.D. 677, 699 (N.D.Ga.1991) (<HOLDING>); In re Wirebound Boxes Antitrust Litig., 128
holding that the claims of the class representative and class members must be based on the same legal or remedial theory recognizing that a conspiracy to maintain prices could in theory impact the entire class despite a decrease in prices for some customers in parts of the class period and despite some divergence in the prices different plaintiffs paid holding typicality satisfied where named plaintiffs did not share all of the claims of the class but the claims alleged appeared to stem from a single course of conduct by which the defendant failed to represent its members fairly and effectively holding typicality requirement satisfied because named plaintiffs claims stemmed from same legal theory as class claims notwithstanding fact that class purchased tickets at different prices according to different terms holding that in the rule 23 class action context named plaintiff may appeal a denial of class certification even if his or her individual claims had been satisfied through the entry of judgment