of proof on the numerosity requirement, the ‘presumption’ approach seems questionable and overly rigid compared to the generally accepted approach that numerical guidelines exist but are not controlling.”). All of the 51 potential class members in this case appear to satisfy the requirements of joinder under RCFC 20. For this reason, the court to date has allowed Plaintiffs to add 15 other plaintiffs to this action. First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 5-19. The record, however, does not establish that joinder of the remaining potential plaintiffs in this case is impracticable. As the Government observed, the United States Court of Federal Claims and its predecessor frequently have managed cases with large numbers of claimants without the need to resort to class action. Jaynes, 69 Fed.Cl. at 454-55 (<HOLDING>); see also Buchan, 27 Fed.Cl. at 224 (“This
recognizing that substantial numbers usually satisfy the numerosity requirement 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 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 classes of seven nine and ten members did not satisfy numerosity