finding that the putative class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.” Newton v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 259 F.3d 154, 182 (3d Cir.2001); Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(1). “No single magic number exists satisfying the numerosity requirement.” Moskowitz v. Lopp, 128 F.R.D. 624, 628 (E.D.Pa.1989). To satisfy the commonality requirement, Plaintiffs must show the existence of at least one question of law or fact common to the entire class. See In re the Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. Sales Practice Litig., 148 F.3d 283, 310 (3d Cir.1998). ‘All that is required is that the litigation involve some common questions and that plaintiffs allege harm under the same legal theory.” Baby Neal, 43 F.3d at 58. See also Hassine v. Jeffes, 846 F.2d 169, 176-77 (3d Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). The typicality requirement is designed to
holding that it is not necessary that all putative class members share identical claims holding that under  216b pjlaintiffs need show only that their positions are similar not identical to the positions held by the putative class members holding that entry of settlement decree without notice to putative class members violated the due process rights of the class members holding that commonality is satisfied where the lawsuit challenges a systemwide practice or policy that affects all of the putative class members holding that putative class members are not parties to an action prior to class certification