joinder of all members is impracticable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). “[A] plaintiff does not need to demonstrate the exact number of class members as long as a conclusion is apparent from good-faith estimates.” Barragan v. Evanger’s Dog and Cat Food Co., 259 F.R.D. 330, 333 (N.D.Ill.2009). Although there is no bright-line rule for exactly how many members are enough to establish a class, “[generally, where class members number at least 40, joinder is considered impracticable and nu-merosity is satisfied.” Oplchenski v. Parfums Givenchy, Inc., 254 F.R.D. 489, 495 (N.D.Ill. 2008); see also Pruitt v. City of Chicago, 472 F.3d 925, 926-27 (7th Cir.2006) (“Sometimes ‘even’ 40 plaintiffs would be unmanageable.”); Swanson v. Am. Consumer Indus., Inc., 415 F.2d 1326, 1333 n. 9 (7th Cir.1969) (<HOLDING>). PHI’s forensic expert’s report shows that
recognizing that the number of class representatives is not significant under rule 23a holding that a proposed class of 40 was a sufficiently large group to satisfy rule 23a holding that rule 23a requirements must be satisfied as if class were to litigate its claims holding that the plaintiffs had not offered sufficient evidence that their claims met the requirements of rule 23a holding that choiceoflaw issues prevented a manageable class under rule 23a