MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD

HYNES & LERACH LLP

WILLIAM S. LERACH (68581)

600 West Broadway, Suite 1800

San Diego, CA 92101

Telephone: 619/231-1058

- and -

REED R. KATHREIN (139304)

JEFFREY W. LAWRENCE (166806)

KIMBERLY C. EPSTEIN (169012)

222 Kearny Street, 10th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94108

Telephone: 415/288-4545

WOLF POPPER LLP

LESTER L. LEVY

MICHAEL A. SCHWARTZ

845 Third Avenue

New York, NY 10022

Telephone: 212/759-4600

[Proposed] Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs

[Additional counsel appear on signature page.]

E&L BALLAN, TRUSTEES FOR THE BENEFIT

OF E&L BALLAN, On Behalf of Themselves

and All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

ADAC LABORATORIES, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________

No. C-98-4934-MHP

CLASS ACTION

DATE: April 5, 1999

TIME: 2:00 p.m.

CTRM: The Honorable Marilyn Hall Patel

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION

II. SUMMARY OF THE ACTION

III. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

IV. ARGUMENT

A. The Ballan Plaintiff Group Is The Most Adequate Plaintiff Under The Exchange Act

B. The Ballan Plaintiff Group Is Qualified Under Rule 23

C. The Court Should Approve The Ballan Plaintiff Group's Choice Of Co-Lead Counsel

V. CONCLUSION

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION

TO: ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 5, 1999 at 2:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as this matter may be heard by and before the Honorable Marilyn Hall Patel, United States District Court, Northern District of California, located at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102, plaintiffs and the additional class members who have submitted signed certifications, as required by §21D(a)(2)(A)(i)-(vi) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") (collectively, "Ballan Plaintiff Group" or "Movants"),⁽¹⁾ will, and hereby do, move this Court for an Order:

1. Appointing the Ballan Plaintiff Group, as defined in the accompanying Memorandum of Law, pursuant to §21D(a)(3)(B) of the Exchange Act, Lead Plaintiff in the above-captioned securities class action lawsuits;

2. Approving their selection of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP and Wolf Popper LLP as Co-Lead Counsel; and

3. Authorizing Lead Plaintiff and their Co-Lead Counsel to designate a maximum of seven individual members of the Ballan Plaintiff Group to give testimony on behalf of the Class in subsequent proceedings.

The motion is based upon this Notice, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed in support thereof, the Declaration of Jeffrey W. Lawrence filed herewith and such other pleadings and argument as may be presented at the hearing on this motion.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I. INTRODUCTION

The Ballan Plaintiff Group submits this memorandum in support of their motion for (a) the appointment of all Movants as Lead Plaintiff; (b) approval of the Ballan Plaintiff Group's choice of Co-Lead Counsel in this action and any other actions that may be consolidated therewith; and (c) authorization for Movants and their Co-Lead Counsel to designate a maximum of seven individual members of the Ballan Plaintiff Group to give testimony on behalf of the Class in subsequent proceedings.⁽²⁾

The Ballan Plaintiff Group collectively purchased 121,258 shares of ADAC common stock during the Class Period and has incurred out-of-pocket losses of approximately $337,022.⁽³⁾ See Movants' Chart of Purchases, Sales and Losses, and Certifications, Lawrence Decl., Exs. A and B, respectively. Movants' substantial financial interest in the relief sought by the Class satisfies the requirements of §21D(a)(3)(B) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B) (iii)(I).⁽⁴⁾ Movants also satisfy the requirement of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because their claims are typical of the claims of the Class, will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the Class (since their interests are closely aligned with the members of the Class) and have retained counsel who are highly experienced in prosecuting securities class actions.

Accordingly, the Ballan Plaintiff Group is "the most adequate plaintiff," as defined by §21D(a)(3)(B) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B), and collectively should be appointed Lead Plaintiff with approval of its choice of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP ("Milberg Weiss") and Wolf Popper LLP ("Wolf Popper") as Co-Lead Counsel.

II. SUMMARY OF THE ACTION

Plaintiff E&L Ballan's Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws, filed on December 29, 1998 (the "Complaint"), asserts a cause of action for ADAC's violation of §§10(b) and 20 of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on behalf of a Class of purchasers of ADAC common stock during the Class Period.⁽⁵⁾ The Complaint alleges that, pursuant to a scheme to artificially inflate the price of ADAC's securities, defendants made a series of false and misleading statements during the Class Period about ADAC's business prospects and financial results. ¶¶21-56. Defendants were consistently able to report "record results," quarter after quarter, making it appear that the Company was growing, its products were succeeding and its business was expanding. E.g., ¶¶22, 25, 49. Defendants' scheme was successful until December 29, 1998 when the Company was forced to announce that it needed to restate its financial results for the previously reported 1996, 1997 and 1998 fiscal years. ¶57. Upon this revelation, the market price of ADAC shares dropped to $19-5/8 from the previous day's close of $27.125, a 28% drop. ¶58.

III. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Section 21D of the Exchange Act requires that early notice be provided to advise class members of their right to move the court to be appointed "lead plaintiff" and provides that any member or members of the class may seek appointment as lead plaintiff within 60 days of publication of the early notice. On December 29, 1998, early notice was published in the Ballan action, and Movants now timely request that the Court appoint the Ballan Plaintiff Group as Lead Plaintiff and approve its choice of Co-Lead Counsel.

Plaintiffs have filed concurrently herewith a Motion to Consolidate Related Actions Against ADAC Laboratories, Inc. for Violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 which seeks to consolidate the above-captioned action with the following actions in this District: Field v. ADAC Laboratories, No. C-98-4936-MHP; Reynolds v. ADAC Laboratories, No. C-98-4941-MHP; Ingersoll v. ADAC Laboratories, No. C-98-4939-MHP; Park East, Inc. v. Lowe, No. C-98-4950-MHP; Davidson v. ADAC Laboratories, No. C-99-0019-MHP; Ansnes v. ADAC Laboratories, No. C-99-0024-MHP; Fernandez v. Lowe, No. C-99-0061-MHP; Bowdoin v. Lowe, No. C-99-0147-MHP; Polk v. ADAC Laboratories, No. C-99-0166-MHP; and High v. ADAC Laboratories, No. C-99-0723-SC. The consolidation motion must be adjudicated prior to ruling upon lead plaintiff pursuant to §21D. 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B)(ii).

Once the cases are consolidated, the Ballan Plaintiff Group hereby moves that it be appointed as Lead Plaintiff for the class.

IV. ARGUMENT

A. The Ballan Plaintiff Group Is The Most Adequate Plaintiff Under The Exchange Act

The Ballan Plaintiff Group constitutes the "most adequate plaintiff" and should therefore be apopinted Lead Plaintiff for the class. Section 21D(a)(3)(B), 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B) of the Exchange Act provides that a court:

[S]hall appoint as lead plaintiff the member or members of the purported plaintiff class that the court determines to be most capable of adequately representing the interests of class members (hereafter in this paragraph referred to as the "most adequate plaintiff") in accordance with this subparagraph.⁽⁶⁾

Thus, a "member or members" of the class or a "person or group of persons" may combine to constitute "the largest financial interest" and thereby jointly serve as the "most adequate plaintiff." Id.; see also In re Diamond Multimedia Sys., Inc., Sec. Litig., No. C-96-2644-SBA, Order re Appointment of Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel at 2-4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 1997) (members of group seeking lead plaintiff status can pool together their shares to form the largest financial interest), Lawrence Decl., Ex. C.⁽⁷⁾

Moreover, the Exchange Act provides for a presumption that:

the most adequate plaintiff in any private action arising under this title is the person or group of persons that --

(aa) has either filed the complaint or made a motion in response to a notice;

(bb) in the determination of the court, has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class; and

(cc) otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Section 21D(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I), 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I) (citation omitted).

During the Class Period, the Ballan Plaintiff Group collectively purchased 121,258 shares of ADAC stock at prices artificially inflated by defendants' false and misleading statements and have collectively suffered losses close to $337,022. See Chart of Movants' Purchases, Sales and Losses, Lawrence Decl., Ex. A. Thus, the Movants believe that the Ballan Plaintiff Group has the largest financial interest in the outcome of the case.⁽⁸⁾

Each movant in the Ballan Plaintiff Group has signed and filed a sworn certification of their review of the Complaint and authorization of its filing and is willing to serve as a representative party on behalf of the Class. In addition, the Ballan Plaintiff Group has selected and retained counsel highly experienced in prosecuting securities class actions such as this one to represent it. See the firm résumés of Milberg Weiss and Wolf Popper, Lawrence Decl., Ex. F. Thus, the Ballan Plaintiff Group is well qualified to represent the proposed Class and, having the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the Class, is presumed to be the most adequate plaintiff.

B. The Ballan Plaintiff Group Is Qualified Under Rule 23

Section 21D(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(cc) of the Exchange Act provides that the lead plaintiff or plaintiffs must also "otherwise satisf[y] the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(cc). Rule 23(a) requires that the claims of the class representative be typical of the claims of the class and that he or she will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

The typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(a)(3) is satisfied when a named plaintiff has: (1) suffered the same injuries as the absent class members; (2) as a result of the same course of conduct by defendants; and (3) their claims are based on the same legal issues. See, e.g., Epstein v. MCA, Inc., 50 F.3d 644, 668 (9th Cir. 1995), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Lawrence, 516 U.S. 367 (1996); In re Cirrus Logic Sec., 155 F.R.D. 654, 657 (N.D. Cal. 1994); Shields v. Smith, [1992 Transfer Binder] Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶97,001, at 94,376 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 1992); In re Activision Sec. Litig., 621 F. Supp. 415, 428 (N.D. Cal. 1985). Here, the Ballan Plaintiff Group members each suffered monetary damages as a result of the materially false and misleading public statements made by or on behalf of ADAC in violation of §§10(b) and 20 of the Exchange Act.

There is a well defined community of interest in the questions of law and fact involved in this case.⁽⁹⁾ The Ballan Plaintiff Group alleges, as does each member of the Class, that ADAC and certain of its officers and directors violated the Exchange Act by publicly disseminating false and misleading statements about ADAC during the Class Period. The Ballan Plaintiff Group acquired, as did each member of the proposed Class, ADAC stock at prices inflated by defendants' misrepresentations and omissions and was damaged thereby. Typicality exists here because the claims asserted by the Ballan Plaintiff Group are based on the same legal theory and arise "from the same event or course of conduct giving rise to the claims of other class members." In re United Energy Corp. Solar Power Modules Tax Shelter Inv. Sec. Litig., 122 F.R.D. 251, 256 (C.D. Cal. 1988). Accord Blackie v. Barrack, 524 F.2d 891, 902-03 & n.19 (9th Cir. 1975).

The interests of the Ballan Plaintiff Group are clearly aligned with the members of the proposed Class, and there is no antagonism between the interests of those individuals and the proposed Class members.⁽¹⁰⁾ As detailed above, the claims of the Ballan Plaintiff Group raise substantially identical questions of law and fact as those of the proposed Class, and its claims are thus typical of the claims of the Class. Moreover, the Ballan Plaintiff Group has demonstrated its adequacy as class representative, because each member of the Ballan Plaintiff Group signed a sworn certification, filed with the Court, affirming his or her willingness to serve as and assume the responsibilities of a class representative. See Lawrence Decl., Ex. B. In addition, the Ballan Plaintiff Group has retained experienced class counsel to represent its interests. Therefore, the Ballan Plaintiff Group should be appointed as Lead Plaintiff in this action.

C. The Court Should Approve The Ballan Plaintiff Group's Choice Of Co-Lead Counsel

The PSLRA vests authority in the Lead Plaintiff to select and retain Lead Counsel, subject to Court approval. See §21D(a)(3)(B)(v), 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v). Thus, the Court should not disturb the Lead Plaintiff's choice of counsel unless it is necessary to protect the interests of the plaintiff class. The Ballan Plaintiff Group has selected the law firms of Milberg Weiss and Wolf Popper to serve as Co-Lead Counsel for the Class. These firms possess extensive experience in the area of securities litigation and have successfully prosecuted numerous securities fraud class actions on behalf of injured investors. See Lawrence Decl., Ex. F. Thus, the Court may be assured that, in the event this motion is granted, the members of the Class will receive the highest caliber of legal representation available.

V. CONCLUSION

For all the foregoing reasons, Movants respectfully request that the Court: (a) appoint all Movants as Lead Plaintiff in the above-captioned action, pursuant to §21D(a)(3)(B), 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(3)(B); (b) approve the Ballan Plaintiff Group's choice of Milberg Weiss and Wolf Popper as Co-Lead Counsel for the Class; and (c) authorize Movants and their Co-Lead Counsel to designate a maximum of five individual members of the Ballan Plaintiff Group to give testimony on behalf of the Class in subsequent proceedings.

DATED: March 1, 1999

Respectfully submitted,

MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD

HYNES & LERACH LLP

WILLIAM S. LERACH

600 West Broadway, Suite 1800

San Diego, CA 92101

Telephone: 619/231-1058

MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD

HYNES & LERACH LLP

REED R. KATHREIN

JEFFREY W. LAWRENCE

KIMBERLY C. EPSTEIN

______________________________

JEFFREY W. LAWRENCE

222 Kearny Street, 10th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94108

Telephone: 415/288-4545

WOLF POPPER LLP

LESTER L. LEVY

MICHAEL A. SCHWARTZ

845 Third Avenue

New York, NY 10022

Telephone: 212/759-4600

[Proposed] Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs

BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE

EDWARD M. GERGOSIAN

600 West Broadway, Suite 1700

San Diego, CA 92101

Telephone: 619/230-0800

BERMAN, DeVALERIO, PEASE

& TABACCO

JOSEPH J. TABACCO, JR.

CHRISTOPHER T. HEFFELFINGER

425 California Street

Suite 2025

San Francisco, CA 94104

Telephone: 415/433-3200

BERMAN, DeVALERIO & PEASE

JEFFREY C. BLOCK

One Liberty Square

Boston, MA 02109

Telephone: 617/542-8300

COHEN, MILSTEIN, HAUSFELD

& TOLL, P.L.L.C.

STEVEN J. TOLL

999 Third Avenue, Suite 3600

Seattle, WA 98104

Telephone: 206/521-0080

ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP

VINCENT R. CAPPUCCI

400 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10022-4406

Telephone: 212/894-7200

LAW OFFICES OF LIONEL Z.

GLANCY

LIONEL Z. GLANCY

1801 Avenue of the Stars

Suite 308

Los Angeles, CA 90067

Telephone: 310/201-9150

LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN

& HOLSTEIN, P.L.L.P.

RICHARD A. LOCKRIDGE

KAREN M. HANSON

GREGG M. FISHBEIN

100 Washington Avenue South

Suite 2200

Minneapolis, MN 55401-2159

Telephone: 612/339-6900

LOWEY DANNENBERG BEMPORAD

& SELINGER, P.C.

NEIL L. SELINGER

DAVID C. HARRISON

The Gateway

One North Lexington Avenue

White Plains, NY 10601

Telephone: 914/997-0500

LAW OFFICES OF BRUCE G. MURPHY

BRUCE G. MURPHY

265 Llwyds Lane

Vero Beach, FL 32963

Telephone: 561/231-4202

POMERANTZ HAUDEK BLOCK

GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP

STANLEY M. GROSSMAN

MARC I. GROSS

PATRICK V. DAHLSTROM

100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor

New York, NY 10017-5516

Telephone: 212/661-1100

WECHSLER HARWOOD HALEBIAN

& FEFFER LLP

STUART D. WECHSLER

JEFFREY M. HABER

FREDERICK W. GERKENS, III

488 Madison Avenue

8th Floor

New York, NY 10022

Telephone: 212/935-7400

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

ADAC-2\BM000703.BRF

I, the undersigned, declare:

1. That declarant is and was, at all times herein mentioned, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County of San Francisco, over the age of 18 years, and not a party to or interested in the within action; that declarant's business address is 222 Kearny Street, 10th Floor, San Francisco, California 94108.

2. That on March 1, 1999, declarant served the THE BALLAN PLAINTIFF GROUP'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF AND APPROVAL OF LEAD PLAINTIFF'S CHOICE OF CO-LEAD COUNSEL by depositing a true copy thereof in a United States mailbox at San Francisco, California in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid and addressed to the parties listed on the attached Service List and that this document was forwarded to the following designated Internet site at:

http://securities.milberg.com

3. That there is a regular communication by mail between the place of mailing and the places so addressed.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 1st day of March, 1999, at San Francisco, California.

______________________________

DEBORAH R. DASH

1. Movants' certifications are attached as Exhibit B to the Declaration of Jeffrey W. Lawrence in Support of Motion of the Ballan Plaintiff Group for Appointment of Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Lead Plaintiff's Choice of Co-Lead Counsel ("Lawrence Decl."), filed concurrently herewith.

2. The Class consists of purchasers of ADAC Laboratories ("ADAC" or the "Company") stock between January 10, 1996 through December 28, 1998, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Here, 40 members of the Class (the "Ballan Plaintiff Group") have stepped forward and expressed interest in representing the Class in this action and have requested approval of the law firms identified herein as their choice of counsel. To promote efficiency at trial and during discovery, Movants request that the Ballan Plaintiff Group and their Co-Lead Counsel be permitted to make a limited designation of a maximum of seven individuals who may be called to give testimony on behalf of the Class.

3. One particular shareholder in the Ballan Plaintiff Group held as many as 59,143 shares, resulting in a loss of $166,266. See Lawrence Decl., Ex. B.

4. The Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-67, 109 Stat. 737 (1995) ("PSLRA").

5. All paragraph references ("¶") are to the Complaint.

6. Emphasis has been added throughout unless indicated otherwise.

7. See also Rosenberg v. Nationsbanc Montgomery Sec., Inc., No. C-98-20956 RMW, Order Appointing Lead Plaintiff and Co-Lead Counsel (N.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 1998); Drimer v. Amgen, Inc., No. 98-6483-WMB (RZx), Order Granting the Drimer Group's Motion to be Appointed Lead Plaintiff and for Appointment of Lead Plaintiffs' Choice of Co-Lead Counsel (C.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 1998); Reiger v. Altris Software, Inc., No. 98cv058J(JFS), 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14705 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 1998); In re Ride, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. C97-402WD, Order Appointing Lead Plaintiffs (W.D. Wa. Aug. 5, 1997); In re Mitcham Indus. Sec. Litig., No. H-98-1244, Amended Order Consolidating Actions and Appointing Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel (S.D. Tex. Sept. 14, 1998); Kwalbrun v. Advanced Fibre Communications, Inc., No. C-98-20697(JF), Order Appointing the Kwalbrun Plaintiffs Group as Lead Plaintiff and Approving Lead Plaintiff's Choice of Counsel (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 1998); In re Vivus, Inc. Sec. Litig., Master File No. C 98 1026 SBA, Order Appointing Lead Plaintiff Pursuant to Section 21(D)(a)(3)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Approval of Lead Plaintiff's Choice of Counsel (N.D. Cal. July 2, 1998); City Nominees Ltd. v. Macromedia, Inc., No. C 97-3521 SC, Order Re Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 1998); In re Read-Rite Corp. Sec. Litig., No. C-97-20059 RMW, Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Appointment of Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel (N.D. Cal. May 28, 1997); Malin v. IVAX Corp., Case No. 96-1843-CIV-MORENO, Order Granting Malin/Ferretti/Pennsylvania Pension Fund Plaintiffs Group's Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiffs and Order Approving Lead Plaintiffs' Choice of Counsel (S.D. Fla. Nov. 1, 1996); Zuckerman v. Foxmeyer Health Corp., No. 3:96-CV-2258-T, Order Granting Motion to Withdraw Motion and Granting Joint Motion for Appointment of Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel (N.D. Tex. Mar. 28, 1997); Chan v. Orthologic Corp., No. CIV 96-1514 PHX RCB, Order (D. Ariz. Dec. 19, 1996); Powers v. Eichen, Civ. No. 96-1431-B(AJB), Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Be Appointed Lead Plaintiffs Pursuant to §21D(a)(3)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and for Appointment of Lead Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel (S.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 1996), Lawrence Decl., Ex. D.

8. See In re Advanced Tissue Sciences Sec. Litig., Master File No. 98-1146-IEG (LAB), 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16926, at *14 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 1998) (all else being equal, court must appoint person or group with "largest financial interest"); In re Olsten Corp. Sec. Litig., 3 F. Supp. 2d 286 (E.D.N.Y. 1998); In re Informix Corp. Sec. Litig., No. C-97-1289-SBA, Order at 3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 1997); Squyres v. Union Texas Petroleum Holdings, Inc., No. CV-98-6085-LGB (AIJx), Order Granting Proposed Union Texas Lead Plaintiffs' Motion for Appointment of Lead Plaintiffs Pursuant to §21D(a)(3)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and for Appointment of Lead Counsel (C.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 1998), Lawrence Decl., Ex. E.

9. The questions of law and fact common to the members of the Class that predominate over questions that may affect individual Class members include the following: (1) whether the federal securities laws were violated by defendants; (2) whether defendants misrepresented material facts; (3) whether defendants' statements omitted material facts necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; (4) whether defendants acted with scienter; (5) whether the price of ADAC stock was artificially inflated during the Class Period; and (6) the extent of damage sustained by Class members and the appropriate measure of damages.

10. See Gluck v. CellStar Corp., 976 F. Supp. 542, 544 (N.D. Tex. 1997) (claims of the presumptively most adequate plaintiff were typical of those of the purported class members); Lax v. First Merchants Acceptance Corp., No. 97 C 2716, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12432, at *20 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 15, 1997); In re Oxford Health Plans Sec. Litig., MDL-1222, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10694, at *25 (S.D.N.Y. July 15, 1998); Malin, No. 96-1843-CIV-MORENO.