number of class members exceeds forty. See Stewart v. Abraham, 275 F.3d 220, 226-27 (3d Cir.2001). In addition, the numerosity requirement is satisfied where the exact size of the class is not known, but general knowledge and common sense indicate that the class is large. Olden v. LaFarge Corp., 203 F.R.D. 254, 269 (E.D.Mich.), aff'd, 383 F.3d 495 (6th Cir.2004). In her complaint, plaintiff suggests that the class is comprised of “at least tens of thousands of persons,” and common sense would seem to dictate that the potential class may be even larger than plaintiff’s good faith estimation. (Doc. No. 1 at ¶ 22.) Courts have consistently found classes similar in size to the one proposed by plaintiff to be sufficiently numerous to make join-der impracticable. See Daffin, 458 F.3d at 552 (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation omitted); see, e.g.,
recognizing that in determining numerosity the proper focus is not on numbers alone but on whether joinder of all members is practicable in view of the numerosity of the class and all other relevant factors holding that 100 to 150 members  is within the range that generally satisfies the numerosity requirement holding that a potential class of 256 members did not satisfy numerosity holding that classes of seven nine and ten members did not satisfy numerosity recognizing that substantial numbers usually satisfy the numerosity requirement