Furlong v. United States, 131 Fed. Cl. 548

271 landowners (opt-in class) allege the United States effected a taking by authorizing conversion of a 9.14-mile rail corridor to recreational trail use under 16 U.S.C. § 1247(d) (Rails‑to‑Trails).
Plaintiffs seek just compensation for extinguished railroad easements; parties conducted discovery and exchanged expert appraisals of representative properties.
After ADR, parties reached a provisional settlement: United States to pay $13,988,929.28 plus interest, including just compensation, pre-judgment interest, URA attorneys’ fees and costs.
Plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of the class settlement, approval of notice to class members, and scheduling of a fairness hearing under RCFC 23(e).
The government did not oppose preliminary approval but challenged aspects of the proposed notice (urging a class website and omitting language referencing private fee agreements). Class counsel revised the notice; the court adopted the revised notice and forms.
The court preliminarily approved the settlement, ordered mail notice to class members, set deadlines for objections/requests to speak, and scheduled a telephonic fairness hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether settlement merits preliminary approval under RCFC 23(e)	Settlement is fair, product of arms‑length negotiations, supported by discovery and expert valuations	Did not oppose preliminary approval	Court preliminarily approved; no obvious deficiencies, no collusion or preferential treatment
Adequacy of proposed class notice (including whether website required)	Mailed notice with option to request additional documents is sufficient; revised notice provides necessary information	Mailed notice insufficient; court should require a class website providing additional information	Court adopted plaintiffs’ revised mailed notice; found mail notice reasonably calculated to inform class and no website required
Content of notice regarding private fee agreements	Proposed notice adequate; additional fee‑agreement language unnecessary	Objected to language referencing enforcement of private fee agreements	Court adopted revised notice; did not adopt government’s request to excise or otherwise alter beyond revisions provided by plaintiffs
Format/location of fairness hearing (telephonic vs. in‑person)	Requested in‑person participation for counsel and class members; will provide forms to request to speak	Defense may appear remotely; government did not oppose telephonic hearing	Court scheduled a telephonic fairness hearing with in‑person participation options in Albany; judge may travel if sufficient class members request in‑person attendance

Haggart v. Woodley, 809 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (notice must reasonably apprise class members and provide access to additional information)
Lambert v. United States, 124 Fed. Cl. 675 (2015) (procedural framework for preliminary fairness evaluation and notice under RCFC 23(e))
Barnes v. United States, 89 Fed. Cl. 668 (2009) (factors considered at preliminary approval: negotiation quality, preferential treatment, counsel experience, obvious deficiencies)
Thomas v. United States, 121 Fed. Cl. 524 (2015) (court’s preliminary role is to screen for obvious deficiencies, not resolve merits)