Dist. Ct. erred in denying plaintiff’s motion to certify her proposed class action in claim alleging that defendant-debt collector violated Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by filing lawsuit seeking to collect for debt arising out of plaintiff’s purchase of natural gas for household use that was beyond applicable limitations period. Applicable limitations period was four years, and fact that plaintiff’s debt was over five years old did not preclude her from being suitable class representative for proposed members who had debts between four and five years old. Ct. rejected Dist. Ct.’s belief that members of proposed class who had not yet been served with defendant’s debt collection lawsuit could not be viewed as proper members of plaintiff’s proposed class where, as here, plaintiff sought only statutory damages under FDCPA. Also, fact that some of proposed members sought actual damages was insufficient by itself to deny plaintiff’s class action request, where underlying liability claim was same for all proposed class members.