Furlong v. United States, 132 Fed. Cl. 630

Plaintiffs are owners of property adjacent to a 9.14-mile rail corridor in Albany County, NY, who alleged the United States converted railroad easements to a recreational trail under 16 U.S.C. § 1247(d), effecting a taking without just compensation.
The case was certified as an opt-in class action (271 class members) and the parties engaged in appraisal, discovery, ADR, and expert valuation by federal appraisal standards.
The parties reached a provisional settlement providing $13,988,929.28 plus interest: $6,489,084.21 principal for just compensation (individual awards $1,300–$440,662), $5,795,743.34 interest through April 7, 2017, post-judgment interest at 3.74% compounded annually, and $1,704,101.73 for attorneys’ fees and costs payable under the URA.
The proposed settlement and notice procedure were preliminarily approved; class counsel reported 225 explicit approvals before the deadline and a total of 234 approvals (plus one neutral) before the fairness hearing; no objections were filed and no class members spoke at the hearing.
The court reviewed the settlement under RCFC 23(e) factors (strengths of claim, counsel recommendation, class reaction, fairness to class, attorneys’ fees, defendant’s ability to pay) and found no collusion, preferential treatment, or procedural deficiency.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the class settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate under RCFC 23(e)	Settlement reflected fair market valuations from appraisals and ADR; provides full class relief and URA fees	Government supported settlement approval reached after ADR and expert exchange	Approved: court found settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate and granted final approval
Adequacy of notice and class reaction	Notice provided necessary information; majority of class explicitly approved	Govt. noted notice and approvals support settlement	Approved: class reaction (≈86% explicit approval, no objections) weighed strongly for approval
Attorneys’ fees method (URA vs common fund)	Counsel sought URA fees rather than drawing from common fund; private contingency agreements remain enforceable privately	Government agreed to URA-based fees; precedent supports URA as reasonable fee mechanism	Approved: court found URA fees appropriate and fair; total URA fees and costs entered as judgment
Weight of defendant’s ability to pay in fairness analysis	Plaintiffs argued settlement appropriate regardless of federal solvency	Government’s solvency argued but conceded not dispositive	Court: federal solvency given little weight; neutral factor and did not affect approval

Haggart v. Woodley, 809 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (discusses RCFC 23(e) and URA fee treatment)
Greenwood v. United States, 131 Fed. Cl. 231 (Fed. Cl. 2017) (discusses court’s limited role in approving class settlements)
Sabo v. United States, 102 Fed. Cl. 619 (Fed. Cl. 2011) (factors for evaluating Rails-to-Trails settlements and grouping of class members)
Dauphin Island Prop. Owners Ass’n v. United States, 90 Fed. Cl. 95 (Fed. Cl. 2009) (approving settlements reached through good-faith ADR; class reaction significance)
Raulerson v. United States, 108 Fed. Cl. 675 (Fed. Cl. 2013) (settlement favored and court’s discretion in weighing factors)