Cobell v. Salazar
400 U.S. App. D.C. 428
| D.C. Cir. | 2012Background
- Cobell and others filed a class action in 1996 alleging breach of fiduciary duties in managing IIM trust accounts.
- The 1994 American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act authorized an historical accounting, but its proper scope/methodology remained unresolved.
- Settlement negotiations in 2009 produced a two-class structure: Historical Accounting Class (broad injunctive relief) and Trust Administration Class (monetary relief).
- The draft settlement provided for a $1.412B settlement fund, additional funds for land consolidation, and various ancillary programs; it required Congressional approval.
- Congress enacted the Claims Resolution Act of 2010, approving and ratifying the settlement, and adjusting funding and certification mechanics.
- Final district-court approval occurred in July-August 2011, certification of both classes and distribution terms were challenged by Craven, leading to this appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Law-of-the-case support for settlement | Craven claims law of the case bars approval. | Law-of-the-case does not foreclose settlement approval due to differing issues. | Law-of-the-case does not bar approval. |
| Rule 23(b)(2) certification for Historical Accounting Class | Craven argues mandatory b(2) certification with monetary relief undermines commonality. | There are overarching common issues; the $1,000 per capita is nonindividualized and consistent with the context. | Certification appropriate under Rule 23(b)(2). |
| Trust Administration Class distribution fairness under Rule 23(e) | Distribution may under- or over-compensate some members due to intra-class conflict. | Distribution is fair given the record and limited funds; no proven intra-class conflict. | Fairness upheld; no abuse of discretion. |
| Due process and commonality/adequacy of representation | Commonality/adequacy standards have constitutional dimension; potential conflicts undermine representation. | Class satisfies commonality and adequate representation; incentives and notice were proper. | No due-process violation; certification affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cobell v. Salazar (Cobell XXII), 573 F.3d 808 (D.C.Cir.2009) (limits on accounting scope; best accounting possible with congressional funding)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (S. Ct. 2011) (classwide commonality limits in wage/disparate-impact style claims)
- Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797 (U.S. 1985) (due-process notice and participation requirements for class actions with monetary relief)
- Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (U.S. 1997) (structure of class actions; limits on certification and conflicts)
- In re Vitamins Antitrust Class Actions, 215 F.3d 26 (D.C.Cir.2000) (adequacy and commonality considerations in class certification)