Barfield v. Sho-Me Power Electric Cooperative
309 F.R.D. 491
W.D. Mo.2015Background
- After a five-day damages trial, the jury awarded Plaintiffs $79,014,140 for unauthorized use of easements for commercial telecoms.
- Judgment documents were amended nunc pro tunc and then a Second Amended Judgment included post-judgment interest.
- Plaintiffs moved to add Rule 23(c)(3) information to the judgment and to approve a Plan of Allocation with Rule 54(b) certification.
- Sho-Me opposed, arguing the judgment must name class members and their amounts and that allocation and unclaimed funds require stricter handling.
- The Court granted the 23(c)(3) information amendment, approved a Plan of Allocation in part, and granted 54(b) certification in part, with removals for unclaimed-fund provisions.
- Final Judgment and related allocations were issued, appointing Garretson Resolution Group as Claims Administrator and Straup Solutions as Claims Center Director.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the judgment must list each class member | Plaintiffs argue Rule 23(c)(3)(B) requires describing the class, not listing every member's name and amount. | Sho-Me contends final judgment must name class members and amounts awarded. | Judgment need only describe the class; names/amounts not required. |
| Whether Sho-Me has standing to contest individual claims | Exxon/allapattah-style arguments do not apply; aggregate damages fixed. | Sho-Me may challenge individual claims and offset/limitations issues. | Sho-Me has no standing to challenge disputes among class members; final aggregate damage is fixed. |
| Whether class certification remains appropriate given the claims process | Plan of Allocation aligns with contemplated claims process and class questions. | Certification should be reconsidered due to administrative efficiency concerns. | Class certification remains appropriate; allocation plan supports administration. |
| Validity of pro rata per-foot, per-year allocation | Allocation based on per-foot, per-year measure is consistent with jury verdict. | Jury did not specify per-foot, per-year allocation. | Plan to allocate pro rata per-foot, per-year is valid and supported by evidence. |
| Prematurity of plan for unclaimed funds; treatment of unclaimed funds | Unclaimed funds can be addressed later; plan now is acceptable. | Unclaimed funds should revert or be cy pres distributed; premature to decide now. | Plan for unclaimed funds not approved as drafted; leave for later after claims process; 13–14 removed. |
| Rule 54(b) finality certification | Certification may aid immediate appellate review. | Unnecessary interlocutory appeal rights. | Rule 54(b) certification granted to finalize claims for appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Allapattah Servs., Inc. v. Exxon Corp., 157 F. Supp. 2d 1291 (S.D. Fla. 2001) (discussion of finality where aggregate damages and claims administration matter)
- Allapattah Servs., Inc. v. Exxon Corp., 333 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2003) (affirmed due process rights to participate in claims process; aggregate damages context)
- Craig Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Viacom Outdoor, Inc., 528 F.3d 1001 (8th Cir. 2008) (clarifies allocation issues where multiple theories of recovery exist)
- Parks v. Pavkovic, 753 F.2d 1397 (7th Cir. 1985) (supports mechanical, per-foot calculation as feasible in class context)
- Strey v. Hunt Int’l Resources Corp., 696 F.2d 87 (10th Cir. 1982) (prematurity concerns about unclaimed funds in Strey context)
- Fogie v. Thorn Americas, Inc., 190 F.3d 889 (8th Cir. 1999) (prematurity of cy pres plan when unclaimed funds exist; post-remand handling)
- Fogie v. Thorn Americas, Inc., 2001 WL 1617964 (D. Minn. 2001) (vacatur of cy pres plan discussed on appeal; remand for plan formation)
- Van Gemert v. Boeing Co., 739 F.2d 730 (2d Cir. 1984) (context on distribution of damages and attorney fees)