Geneva Rock Products, Inc. v. United States, 119 Fed. Cl. 581

Rails-to-trails class action challenging NITU-based trail use on a 3.23-mile rail corridor; plaintiffs allege a Fifth Amendment taking.
Litigation progressed through certification, partial summary judgment on liability and damages, and settlement negotiations for the entire class.
Settlement provides just compensation plus interest, plus a set amount of statutory attorneys’ fees and costs under the Uniform Relocation Act.
Two class members’ claims were dismissed with prejudice; twenty-two other class members opted in and received notices and comments opportunities.
Class counsel sought RCFC 23(h) approval of a 35% contingent fee against total recovery; concerns arose over fee structure and lodestar cross-check.
Court conducted a fairness and reasonableness review under RCFC 23(e) and evaluated fee reasonableness with a lodestar cross-check.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate under RCFC 23(e).	Geneva Rock argues terms are fair given risks and recovery; negotiations were arm's-length.	Government contends terms may overstate value or be affected by fee structure; partially opposes.	Settlement approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate.
Whether 17.5% contingent fee is reasonable under RCFC 23(h).	Counsel contends high value case, complex litigation, and contingent fee justified by results.	Government questions presumptions of reasonableness and argues lack of written contingency with Geneva Rock.	17.5% contingent fee approved; lodestar cross-check supports reasonableness.
Whether statutory fee allocation and class crediting against the contingent fee are proper.	Credit to class for statutory fees reflects dollar-for-dollar offset against contingency.	Disagrees on calculation mechanics; seeks appropriate alignment with Uniform Relocation Act.	Statutory fee retained by counsel, with dollar-for-dollar credit to class; overall allocation approved.
Whether the government has standing to challenge the fee or the fee methodology in this RCFC 23(h) context.	No class member objections; government should be bound by settlement terms.	Government claims standing to challenge fee as party to action.	Government lacks standing to object to the attorney’s fee amount; court reviews independently.

Weinberger v. Kendrick, 698 F.2d 61 (2d Cir. 1982) (court approved settlement oversight standards for class actions)
Christensen v. United States, 65 Fed. Cl. 625 (2005) ( RCFC 23(e) fairness analysis and factors)
Dauphin Island Prop. Owners Ass’n v. United States, 90 Fed. Cl. 95 (2009) (notice, fairness considerations for settlements in government takings)
Sabo v. United States, 102 Fed. Cl. 619 (2011) (class action settlement fairness and notification considerations)
Raulerson v. United States, 108 Fed. Cl. 675 (2013) (lodestar considerations in fee awards under Uniform Relocation Act)
Moore v. United States, 63 Fed. Cl. 781 (2005) (lodestar method and reasonableness mechanics)
Haggart v. United States, 116 Fed. Cl. 131 (2014) (contingent fee and lodestar cross-check in rails-to-trails context)
In re Rite Aid Corp. Sec. Litig., 396 F.3d 294 (3d Cir. 2005) (lodestar cross-check and common fund concept in fee awards)
Brandt v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1257 (2014) (Supreme Court on takings and rail alignment; referenced in context of damages)
Hash v. United States, 403 F.3d 1208 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (interpretation of easements and takings authority)
Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S. 472 (1980) (standing in common fund fee disputes)
Copeland v. Marshall, 641 F.2d 880 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (fee award dynamics in class actions)
Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1257 (2014) (Supreme Court takings interpretation cited in background)