807 F. Supp. 2d 201
M.D. Penn.2011Background
- Plaintiffs, a class of institutionalized individuals with intellectual disabilities (ICF/MR), alleged DPW violated ADA and RA by keeping them in facilities instead of community-based services.
- The Court previously granted summary judgment finding DPW violated integration mandates and encouraged settlement negotiations.
- Magistrate Carlson mediated a Proposed Settlement Agreement between the parties.
- The Settlement creates a Planning List for residents not opposed to discharge, with annual assessments and an Integration Plan phased over multiple fiscal years.
- The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement and Plaintiffs seek payment of $432,500 in attorneys’ fees and costs; Defendants do not oppose the fee motion.
- The Court conducted a fairness hearing, considered objections, and ultimately approved the Settlement and fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fairness of the settlement under Rule 23(e)? | Girsh factors support approval; negotiations were arm’s length with limited class objection. | Settlement may impose risk of biased placement; objections signal concerns. | Settlement approved as fair, adequate, and reasonable. |
| Reasonableness of attorneys’ fees and costs? | Fee amount aligns with lodestar and bargaining; reflects extensive work. | Defendants did not oppose; no contrary challenge presented. | $432,500 awarded for fees and costs. |
| Court’s retention of jurisdiction and implementation of settlement? | Settlement includes ongoing reporting and monitoring; court supervision appropriate. | Not disputed; focus on implementing agreement. | Court retains jurisdiction per settlement terms. |
Key Cases Cited
- Girsh v. Jepson, 521 F.2d 153 (3d Cir.1975) (nine factors for evaluating settlement fairness)
- Ehrheart v. Verizon Wireless, 609 F.3d 590 (3d Cir.2010) (fiduciary duty in evaluating class settlements; presumption of fairness when arm’s-length negotiations and discovery occurred)
- In re Warfarin Sodium Antitrust Litig., 391 F.3d 516 (3d Cir.2004) (presumption of fairness in settlements)
- In re Pet Food Prods. Liab. Litig., 629 F.3d 333 (3d Cir.2010) (Girsh factors; consideration of attorneys’ fees as part of settlement fairness)
- Windall v. Windall, 51 F.3d 1179 (3d Cir.1995) (forum rate rule for attorney fees; when to deviate to out-of-forum rates)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (lodestar principle; reasonable fee calculation)
- Interfaith Cmty. Org. v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., 426 F.3d 694 (3d Cir.2005) (factors for adjusting lodestar; final fee determination)