court has not created a ‘magic number’ number that, once overcome, raises a presumption that numerosity is satisfied.”). Moreover, such an approach would be contrary to the United States Supreme Court’s holding in General Tel. Co. of the Northwest, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 446 U.S. 318, 100 S.Ct. 1698, 64 L.Ed.2d 319 (1980), that “[t]he numerosity requirement requires examination of the specific facts of each case and imposes no absolute limitations.” Id. at 330, 100 S.Ct. 1698; see also Moore’s Federal Praotioe § 23.22[l]|b] (“To the extent that any ‘presumption’ effectively alters the b , however, has never had difficulty dealing with hundreds of party plaintiffs or with single plaintiff ‘test’ cases.”); O’Hanlon v. United States, 7 Cl.Ct. 204, 206-207 (1985) (<HOLDING>) In addition, “the ease of identifying [class]
holding it appropriate for the purposes of developing an analysis of the potential damages at issue to include some request for information or an appropriately designed questionnaire which could be made part of the notice itself holding that de facto dismissal without prejudice was appropriate where a plaintiffs certificate failed to state with specificity that a defendant was the proximate cause of the plaintiffs injury holding joinder appropriate for 39 potential plaintiffs holding that dismissal without prejudice was appropriate where a plaintiff failed to name each of the persons alleged to have violated the appropriate standard of care recognizing contribution in the appropriate case