37.  As set forth below, the proposed Class satisfies the requirements for a class  action.    39.  Plaintiff is a member of the Class he seeks to represent, as detailed in the factual  background and the claims for relief section of this complaint. The averments of fact and  questions of law are common to the Class.   40.  The Class is believed to include well over thirty thousand members.  The Class is  so numerous and spread out across the State of Texas that joinder of all members is  impracticable.   41.  A Texas statute governs this action. Also, the standardized lease agreements used  by GREYSTAR and SVFC in carrying out their management and lessor duties, which leases are  forms promulgated by the Texas Apartment Association, are governed by Texas common law  and the Texas Property Code.     43.  GREYSTAR and SVFC engaged in a common course of conduct giving rise to  the legal rights sought to be enforced by Class members.  The same claims are involved.   Individual questions, if any, pale by comparison to the numerous common questions that  predominate.   45.  Class members have been damaged by Defendants' misconduct.  Class members  have been charged and have paid excessive amounts, allowing Defendants to impermissibly  profit by adding extra fees or other surcharges for water and wastewater.    46.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the other Class members. Plaintiff  was charged impermissible Utility Connection Fees.    47.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class.  Plaintiff is  familiar with the basic facts underlying the Class members’ claims.    48.  Plaintiff’s interests do not conflict with the interests of the other Class members  they seek to represent. Plaintiff has retained counsel competent and experienced in class action  litigation and intends to prosecute this action vigorously.    49.  Plaintiff’s counsel have successfully prosecuted complex class actions, including  two similar class action cases involving similar apartment tenant utility billing issues as in this  case.  Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class  members.    50.  The class action device is superior to other available means for the fair and  efficient adjudication of the claims of Plaintiff and the Class members.  The relief sought per  individual Class member is small given the burden and expense of individual prosecution of the  potentially extensive litigation necessitated by Defendants' conduct. Furthermore, it would be  virtually impossible for Class members to seek redress on an individual basis.  Even if Class  members themselves could afford such individual litigation, the court system could not.    52.  Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the  Class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting  the Class as a whole.    53.  For the reasons stated herein, a class action is superior to other available methods  for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. 