Elouise Cobell v. Sally Jewell
419 U.S. App. D.C. 370
| D.C. Cir. | 2015Background
- Five named class representatives brought a 1996 class action against the Department of the Interior for failure to account for Individual Indian Money trust accounts; the parties ultimately reached a comprehensive Settlement Agreement ratified by the Claims Resolution Act of 2010.
- The Settlement provided $1,000 to Historical Accounting Class members and baseline/tranche payments to Trust Administration Class members; it also authorized district-court incentive awards for class representatives and separate awards for attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs.
- Plaintiffs sought $99.9 million in attorney fees (contending a larger award was appropriate), $2.5 million in incentive awards for four class representatives, and $10.5 million in reimbursement of litigation-related expenses (including payments made by third parties and personal expenditures by lead plaintiff Elouise Cobell).
- At the fairness hearing the district court awarded $2.5 million in incentive payments but denied the separate $10.5 million expense reimbursement, explaining Cobell’s claimed personal expenses would be subsumed within her $2 million incentive award and concluding it lacked authority to reimburse third-party-paid expenses.
- Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration; the district court denied reconsideration in 2014, treating part of the motion as untimely/new under Rule 59(e). Plaintiffs appealed; Cobell died before substitution was made but the court later permitted substitution for her individual monetary claim for purposes of the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appeal is timely/final and ripe | Plaintiffs: appeal from denial of expenses is timely via timely reconsideration motion; issue ripe because legal question and funds available | Govt: appeal untimely because reconsideration should have been Rule 54(b)/59(e) timing issue; approval judgment final | Court: appeal is timely, final as to pre-settlement expenses, and ripe for review |
| Whether Cobell’s personal expenses ($390,000) remain compensable after her death | Plaintiffs: Cobell personally liable for some expenses and entitled to reimbursement | Govt: no substitution/mootness; if not, expenses already accounted for in incentive award | Court: Cobell’s individual claim required substitution; counsel failed to timely substitute but court granted substitution for purposes of appeal; in any event Cobell’s personal expenses were properly incorporated into her $2M incentive award and no additional award owed |
| Whether district court had authority to reimburse third-party-paid expenses under Settlement/Fee Agreements | Plaintiffs: Settlement and Fee Agreements permit reimbursement of third-party costs in addition to class-counsel expenses | Govt: limits on awards; third-party expenses not recoverable; district court lacked authority | Court: district court erred in treating reconsideration argument as procedurally barred and should have considered on Rule 54(b) basis; vacated and remanded for district court to interpret agreements and exercise discretion on third-party reimbursements |
| Standard of review for denial of expenses and reconsideration | Plaintiffs: legal interpretation de novo; discretionary aspects reviewed for abuse of discretion | Govt: similar | Court: contract/statutory interpretation de novo; district court’s discretionary decisions (award and denial of reconsideration) reviewed for abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Cobell v. Kempthorne, 455 F.3d 317 (D.C. Cir.) (prior appeals and procedural history of Cobell litigation)
- Cobell v. Salazar, 679 F.3d 909 (D.C. Cir.) (review of settlement approval and related issues)
- Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S. 196 (1988) (an appeal on the merits is a final decision even if fee questions remain)
- Buchanan v. Stanships, Inc., 485 U.S. 265 (1988) (fees/costs generally collateral to the merits judgment)
- Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Central Pension Fund, 134 S. Ct. 773 (2014) (fee awards authorized by contract/statute governed by same finality principles)
- Gilda Marx, Inc. v. Wildwood Exercise, Inc., 85 F.3d 675 (D.C. Cir.) (fee liability is not final until amount determined)
- Center for Nuclear Responsibility, Inc. v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 781 F.2d 935 (D.C. Cir.) (Rule 59(e) tolling of appeal time)