Dick v. Sprint Communications Co., 297 F.R.D. 283

Dick and Ekers sue Sprint and Qwest for placing fiber-optic facilities in railroad rights of way without consent or compensation to landowners.
Settlement Agreement (Kentucky class) executed November 15, 2012; parties move to certify the settlement class and preliminarily approve notice.
Settlement provides up to $1,457,000 in cash to class members, $565,000 in attorneys’ fees and expenses, and about $337,000 for administrative costs; compensation is $0.64 per linear foot with ownership-based pro rata allocation.
Claims must be supported by a claim form, deed/title, release, and a telecommunications easement deed; Rust Consulting serves as Claims Administrator and funds are deposited into a Settlement Account.
Preliminary approval granted December 21, 2012; Fairness Hearing held June 18, 2013; one objector (Grothaus) appeared and objected to various settlement terms.
Court grants final approval, approves fees, costs, expenses, and incentive awards, and orders payment by separate order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate	Dick/Ekers argue the settlement reasonably resolves disputed rights and avoids risk of ongoing litigation.	Sprint/Qwest argue the terms balance risk and recovery and provide finality for the class.	Settlement approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate.
Whether the method of payment to landowners is proper	Current landowners should receive benefits without complex claim procedures.	Claims process ensures proper verification and administration of benefits.	Claims process upheld; payment method via claims forms is proper.
Whether the Rule 70 conveyance of easements is authorized	Conveyance serves to resolve future claims and secure finality.	Rule 70 authorizes court-ordered acts to effectuate judgments and settlements in this context.	Rule 70 authority recognized; easement conveyance approved.
Whether class notice was adequate	Notice provided via direct mail, publications, media, and website adequately informed class members.	Notice meets due process and Rule 23(e)(2) requirements.	Notice determined adequate and reasonably calculated to reach class members.
Whether the attorney-fee award is reasonable	Fees of $565,000 are justified given nationwide settlements and benefit to the class.	Fees reflect customary ranges and are supported by cross-checks and risks.	Attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses approved as reasonable.

Granada Invs., Inc. v. DWG Corp., 962 F.2d 1203 (6th Cir.1992) (seven-factor test guiding fairness of class settlements)
Bowling v. Pfizer, Inc., 102 F.3d 777 (6th Cir.1996) (guidance on attorney-fee awards in class actions and structure of the analysis)
Rawlings v. Prudential-Bache Properties, Inc., 9 F.3d 513 (6th Cir.1993) (reasonableness standard for attorney’s fees in class actions)
In re Gen. Tire & Rubber Co. Sec. Litig., 726 F.2d 1075 (6th Cir.1984) (likelihood of success versus form of relief in evaluating settlements)
Ehrheart v. Verizon Wireless, 609 F.3d 590 (3d Cir.2010) (settlement approvals and respect for private, consensual bargains)