Greenwood v. United States, 10-15

Background

Rails-to-trails takings case brought on behalf of 53 landowners (78 parcels) along a 6.70-mile corridor in Lawrence County, Arkansas. Class certified March 5, 2013.
Parties negotiated a settlement after a joint appraisal process categorizing representative parcels and using spreadsheets to value unappraised parcels.
Settlement total: $1,025,595.00 (principal $611,795.00; interest $413,800.00 as of Aug. 31, 2016). Individual principal amounts listed in an attachment to the agreement.
Class counsel moved for preliminary approval of the settlement and proposed notice; the government did not oppose approval but proposed revisions to the notice and that certain supporting materials be made available (via website).
Key contested points: sufficiency of notice and access to appraisal/methodology details; whether class counsel could seek contingent/common-fund fees from the settlement (later withdrawn/abandoned).
Court granted preliminary approval, adopted the government’s notice with modifications, required documents be made available upon request, scheduled a 30‑day notice period (Feb 3–Mar 6, 2017) and a telephonic fairness hearing on Mar 24, 2017.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the settlement is preliminarily fair, reasonable, and adequate	Settlement results from joint appraisals and non-collusive negotiation; provides specific payments per parcel	Agrees with preliminary approval generally	Court preliminarily approved the settlement; found no collusion or preferential treatment
Whether notice to class members is adequate under RCFC 23(e) and due process	Proposed notice states counsel will provide appraisals and calculations upon request and details the joint appraisal process	Proposed revisions to add more detail, clarify interest calculation, and provide access to appraisals/methodology (suggests website)	Court adopted government’s notice form (with minor edits); found notice adequate to inform class members
Whether class members must be given easy access to appraisal spreadsheets and methodology (extent/method of access)	Class counsel: will provide appraisals and calculations upon request; previous opportunities existed to review appraisals	Government: class members should be able to readily access appraisals and methodology (proposes website)	Court required counsel to provide appraisals/methodology upon request (did not mandate website) and found this satisfied Haggart’s requirement for access to additional information
Attorney fees — whether contingent fees/common-fund recovery may be claimed from settlement	Class counsel initially sought contingent fees from some members and suggested common-fund recovery	Government opposed common-fund recovery; relied on Haggart to preclude such recovery here	Court approved notice omitting references to contingent/common-fund fees; class counsel abandoned common-fund argument and fees will be addressed separately under URA

Key Cases Cited

Haggart v. Woodley, 809 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (notice must allow class members easy access to additional detailed information and methodology)
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (notice must be reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties and permit objections)
In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 628 F.3d 185 (5th Cir. 2010) (importance of providing means to acquire more detailed information when notice is general)
Barnes v. United States, 89 Fed. Cl. 668 (Fed. Cl. 2009) (process for preliminary fairness evaluation, notice, and fairness hearing in class settlements)
Sabo v. United States, 102 Fed. Cl. 619 (Fed. Cl. 2011) (approving settlement that did not include attorney-fee recoveries from the settlement fund)