began to run. Ritt involved only that class of plaintiffs that purchased Tae-Bo products, none of which were produced or sold by the defendants in this case. Purchasers of Tae-Bo products are specifically excluded from this lawsuit. The parties in this case, none of whom were named parties in Ritt, are not precluded from litigating the class issue because unnamed class members are not parties to a putative class action and are not bound by that adverse certification decision. See Smith v. Bayer Corp.,-U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 2368, 2379-80 & n. 10, 180 L.Ed.2d 341 (2011). 2 . Other courts have followed this same approach when faced with a situation in which a previous court has not made a determination as to the "validity of the class.” See Yang v. Odom, 392 F.3d 97, 104, 112 (3d Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); Catholic Social Servs., Inc. v. I.N.S., 232
holding that putative class members are not parties to an action prior to class certification holding that tolling applies to a subsequent class action when the prior denial of class certification was based solely on rule 23 deficiencies of the putative representative holding that tolling applies to a subsequent class action when class certification was granted in a prior case 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 holding that no subsequent class actions may benefit from tolling when class certification has been denied