In showing numerosity, plaintiffs need not demonstrate that joinder is impossible, but rather that joining all class members would be difficult. Evans v. Am. Credit Sys., Inc., 222 F.R.D. 388, 393 (D.Neb.2004). There is no magic number for proving numerosity, but courts have stated as few as forty class members is sufficient to show joinder is impracticable.

Additionally, the magistrate judge's decision to certify class is consistent with this district's previous ruling in Evans v. Am. Credit Sys., Inc., which is more factually similar to the present case than Jenkins. See Evans v. Am. Credit Sys., Inc., 222 F.R.D. 388 (D. Neb. 2004). Thus the plaintiffs meet both the commonality and the typicality requirements.

Run-of-the-mill certified FDCPA class actions have involved standard-form collection letters sent directly to consumers before the filing of collection lawsuits. See, e.g., Evans v. Am. Credit Sys., Inc., 222 F.R.D. 388, 394 (D.Neb.2004), on which the district court relied. But in this case, plaintiffs challenge standard-form pleadings used by a debt collector in collection lawsuits it actually filed.

); see also Evans v. Am. Credit Sys., Inc., 222 F.R.D. 388, 396 (D. Neb. 2004).

To establish commonality, Rule 23(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that there be a question of law or fact common to the class. Evans v. Am. Credit Sys., 222 F.R.D. 388, 393 (D. Neb. 2004). Accordingly, because there are numerous common questions of law and fact, the Court finds that the Plaintiff's and the Class's claims arise from a common course of conduct, and they share a common interest in determining whether the collection communication at issue violated the FDCPA and NCPA.

"'The focus of Rule 23(a)(4) is whether: (1) the class representatives have common interests with the members of the class, and (2) whether the class representatives will vigorously prosecute the interests of the class through qualified counsel.'" Evans v. Am. Credit Sys., Inc., 222 F.R.D. 388, 395 (D. Neb. 2004) (quoting Paxton v. Union Nat. Bank, 688 F.2d 552, 562 (8th Cir. 1982)) (internal citations omitted). The Court finds the plaintiff and his counsel have established the representation element under Rule 23(a)(4).

Joinder need not be impossible; it need only be difficult. See Evans v. Am. Credit Sys., Inc., 222 F.R.D. 388, 393 (D. Neb. 2004). Though no specific number is required to reach numerosity, as little as forty has qualified.

If the same evidence can suffice for each member of the class on an issue, then it becomes a common question. Blades, 400 F.3d at 566; see also Evans v. Am. Credit Sys., Inc., 222 F.R.D. 388, 396 (D. Neb. 2004) ("Implicit in the satisfaction of the predominance test is the notion that the adjudication of common issues will help achieve judicial economy."). Here, I find that common questions predominate over individual questions.

The plaintiffs' claims are premised on the actual filing and merits of individual lawsuits in state court, not on a debt collector's mass-mailing of Dunning letters. Compare Evans v. American Credit Sys., Inc., 222 F.R.D. 388 (D. Neb. 2004). While each plaintiff contends the state court actions were time-barred and misrepresented the character or legal status of the alleged debts, those issues cannot be resolved without individual inquiry.