context: For this reason, the court to date has allowed Plaintiffs to add 15 other plaintiffs to this action. First Am. Compl. PP 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.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 69 Fed.Cl. 454, 454-55
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that a potential class of 256 members did not satisfy numerosity
citation_a.sentence: Jaynes, 69 Fed.Cl. at 454-55 (holding that a potential class of 256 members did not satisfy numerosity); see also Buchan, 27 Fed.Cl. at 224 (“This court, 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 joinder appropriate for 39 potential plaintiffs.)
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 27 Fed.Cl. 224, 224
citation_b.parenthetical: "This court, however, has never had difficulty dealing with hundreds of party plaintiffs or with single plaintiff 'test' cases."
citation_b.sentence: Jaynes, 69 Fed.Cl. at 454-55 (holding that a potential class of 256 members did not satisfy numerosity); see also Buchan, 27 Fed.Cl. at 224 (“This court, 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 joinder appropriate for 39 potential plaintiffs.)