['COBELL v. SALAZAR ']
29 F. Supp. 3d 18
D.D.C.2014Background
- Plaintiffs (class representatives in Cobell) sought incentive awards and reimbursement of $10,556,274.59 for litigation-support expenses incurred by third‑party organizations (including the Blackfeet Reservation Development Fund (BRDF), Indian Land Tenure Foundation, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Charles River Associates, RSH Consulting).
- At the June 20, 2011 fairness hearing the Court granted some incentive awards but denied an additional $10.56M for third‑party expenses, finding no class representative personally incurred those out‑of‑pocket expenses and no authority for a separate award.
- Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration shortly after, but their motion advanced a new theory not previously argued: that class representatives personally guaranteed certain BRDF obligations (notably to the Lannan Foundation and Otto Bremer Foundation) via assignments, making them personally liable for portions of the third‑party debts.
- Plaintiffs amended their requested amount over time (ultimately asserting different totals and attaching supplemental affidavits) and relied on alleged assignments that purportedly assign attorney‑fee recovery rights to BRDF as consideration for BRDF funding litigation costs.
- The Court treated the motion as under Rule 59(e) and denied it because plaintiffs raised new arguments and evidence that could have been presented earlier and, on the merits, the asserted assignments were unproven, ambiguous, and at best suggested any repayment could be satisfied from the $99 million attorneys’‑fee award rather than the class common fund.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 59(e) reconsideration is warranted for expenses denied at fairness hearing | Plaintiffs argued reconsideration justified because class reps are personally liable for BRDF debts (assignments/guarantees) and thus need reimbursement to avoid financial harm | Defendants argued plaintiffs raised a new theory not presented at briefing/hearing and did not supply required proof of assignments; motion is untimely as new arguments | Denied: motion raised arguments/evidence that could have been made before judgment, so Rule 59(e) relief inappropriate |
| Whether class reps are personally liable for third‑party grants/loans via assignments | Plaintiffs contended class reps executed assignments guaranteeing repayment of recoverable grants to BRDF, creating personal liability for certain debts | Defendants showed only limited/ambiguous assignment(s) in record (signed by Cobell and one other), and plaintiffs failed to produce the claimed assignments | Denied on merits: plaintiffs failed to substantiate personal liability; any repayment obligation likely satisfiable from attorneys’‑fee award, not class fund |
| Whether court should reduce common fund to reimburse third‑party organizations | Plaintiffs sought reimbursement from the common fund to pay third‑party creditors to avoid class reps’ hardship | Defendants maintained no authority to separately award those third‑party expenses against fund absent proof of rep liability | Court refused to diminish common fund for these third‑party debts absent proper proof and prior presentation of the issue |
| Whether incentive awards/assignments create conflict or affect fee award distribution | Plaintiffs argued settlement/agreements allowed payment of costs independent of class counsel fees | Court noted potential ambiguity and concern whether reps understood legal effect of assignments; also observed incentive awards are distinct from fees/costs | Court did not decide merits of settlement provision argument; cautioned assignments may implicate conflicts and that assignments likely attach to attorneys’‑fee award, not incentive awards |
Key Cases Cited
- Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (Rule 59(e) relief reserved for intervening change, new evidence, or to correct clear error)
- Dyson v. District of Columbia, 710 F.3d 415 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (same standard for reconsideration under Rule 59(e))
- GSS Group Ltd. v. National Port Authority, 680 F.3d 805 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (Rule 59(e) may not introduce new arguments that could have been raised earlier)
- Rodriguez v. West Publishing Corp., 563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009) (purpose and scope of incentive awards to class representatives)