for injunc-tive relief under Rule 23(b)(2). See Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 508 (9th Cir.1992). As discussed below, Plaintiffs’ proposed modified class meets these requirements. 1. Rule 23(a) Requirements a. Numerosity: Class So Numerous that Joinder of All Members is Impracticable Plaintiffs contend that the numerosity requirement is met for the modified class because “the [County] Facilities hold a combined total of 500 immigration detainees on an average day” and “the class may now be even more numerous” with the addition of the detainees housed at the Bakersfield facility. Motion at 13. Defendants correctly concede that the numerosity requirement is satisfied. See Newton v. Am. Debt Servs., Inc., No. C-11-3228 EMC, 2015 WL 3164197, at *6 (N.D.Cal. June 9, 2015) (<HOLDING>). b. Commonality: There Are Questions of Law or
recognizing a presumption of arbitrability when a contract contains an arbitration clause recognizing this presumption recognizing a presumption of reasonableness recognizing there is a presumption of numerosity where the proposed class contains 100 or more members recognizing presumption