Greenwood v. United States
131 Fed. Cl. 231
Fed. Cl.2017Background
- Class action under the Rails-to-Trails conversion: 53 Arkansas landowners (78 parcels) challenged loss of property interests after interim trail use; parties negotiated a global settlement.
- Parties retained an appraiser and mapping expert, grouped parcels into seven representative categories, and used representative appraisals extrapolated by frontage to value each claim.
- Proposed settlement: $1,025,595 total ($611,795 principal; $413,800 interest through Aug. 31, 2016); allocation to individual claimants attached to the settlement.
- Court granted preliminary approval, sent individualized notices that identified the fees motion and told class members how to request the motion and supporting materials; fairness hearing held March 24, 2017 (no class objections to the settlement).
- Court found settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate and directed entry of judgment for principal plus interest; resolved plaintiffs’ URA fee request under lodestar with partial adjustments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Final approval of the class settlement | Settlement is fair after joint appraisal, discovery, and negotiation | Government raised no substantive opposition to settlement terms; challenged certain notice/forms | Approved: settlement found fair, reasonable, adequate; judgment entered for principal + interest |
| Whether notice satisfied RCFC 23(h) for attorneys’ fee motion | Notice that identified the fee motion and provided means to request filings was sufficient | Government argued notice inadequate because class members were not directly provided the fee motion filings | Held: Notice complied with RCFC 23(h); class members could request materials and object; court proceeded to decide fees |
| Appropriate hourly rates for lodestar (URA) | Seek rates up to $475 (partners), $275 (associates), $150–175 (paralegals); earlier contingency agreements quoted lower rates for 2009–10 | Government urged using contingent-fee rates as ceiling and lower rates for comparable fee-shifting matters | Held: Use contingent-fee rates for 2009–2010 ($375 partners, $275 associates, $150 paralegals); for 2011+ approved higher requested rates ($475 partners, $275 associates, $150–175 paralegals) |
| Compensability of hours (pre-filing, vague entries, travel, time on unsuccessful arguments) | Seek reimbursement for ~1,174.5 hours including pre-filing investigation, travel, fee motion work | Government challenged client-development hours, vague entries, excessive travel, and hours on unsuccessful arguments or notice dispute | Held: Pre-filing investigatory hours reimbursable; exclude 2 vague partner hours; travel time reimbursable as reasonable; reduce hours for work on unsuccessful fee theories and partially reduce time on contested notice issues (50% reduction for that portion) |
Key Cases Cited
- Haggart v. Wood, 809 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (rails-to-trails fee/common-fund discussion and standard for fee awards)
- Biery v. United States, 818 F.3d 704 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (lodestar carries strong presumption of reasonableness; departures require specific evidence)
- Bywaters v. United States, 670 F.3d 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (contingent-fee agreements may inform but do not automatically cap lodestar)
- City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557 (1992) (lodestar method for fee-shifting statutes)
- Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542 (2010) (need for specific evidence to justify departures from lodestar)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (reductions for excessive, redundant, or unnecessary hours)
- Crumbaker v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 781 F.2d 191 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (travel time may be compensable at regular billing rates when reasonable)
- Horne v. Department of Agriculture, 135 S. Ct. 2419 (2015) (just compensation measured by market value at time of taking)