forty or more members. See id. at 936. A plaintiff need not provide “a precise quantification of their class,” and courts may “make common sense assumptions” to support a finding of numerosity. Pecere v. Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield, 194 F.R.D. 66, 69 (E.D.N.Y.2000). Nevertheless, a plaintiff seeking class certification “ ‘must show some evidence of or reasonably estimate the number of class members.’ ” Pecere, 194 F.R.D. at 69 (quoting LeGrand v. New York City Trans. Auth., 1999 WL 342286 *3 (May 26, 1999)). Where the plaintiffs assertion of numerosity is pure speculation or bare allegations, the motion for class certification fails. See Demarco v. Edens, 390 F.2d 836, 845 (2d Cir.1968); Reese v. Arrow Financial Servcs. LLC, 202 F.R.D. 83, 2001 WL 901280 (D.Conn. June 14, 2001) (<HOLDING>); Wilner, 198 F.R.D. at 396 (finding that the
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 a complaints bare assertions alone were insufficient for certification holding that bare assertions of numerosity are insufficient and the plaintiff must reasonable estimate or provide some evidence of the number of class members holding that a potential class of 256 members did not satisfy numerosity recognizing that in determining numerosity courts must consider the geographical dispersion of the class the ease with which class members may be identified the nature of the action and the size of each plaintiffs claim