Haggart v. United States, 116 Fed. Cl. 131

Background

Rails-to-trails takings class action with 500+ landowners asserting uncompensated takings from NITUs in King County, WA; Burlington Northern transferred rights to King County for trail use, creating a rail-banked corridor.
After partial summary judgment, the case settled for 253 viable landowner claims; court approved division of class into 22 valuation groups for appraisal.
Representatives and a government appraiser valued representative parcels; unique parcels were directly appraised; other parcels’ values were extrapolated from representative parcels by square footage.
Settlement totaled 110,000,000 principal plus 27,961,218.69 in interest; government-related costs included statutory attorneys’ fees of 1,920,000 and costs of 660,000 under 42 U.S.C. § 4654; Treasury would pay funds under the Judgment Fund.
Class counsel sought a 30% contingency fee of the common fund; government-supported notice and distribution were arranged; the court later applied a scaled fee approach (30% for first 50M, 25% for next 50M, 20% for amounts over 100M).
Court entered final judgment totaling 140,541,218.69 (137,961,218.69 to prevailing class members plus 2,580,000 statutory fees), with class counsel retaining 33,172,243.74 as a contingent fee and 660,000 in costs.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate under RCFC 23(e).	Haggart emphasizes arms-length negotiations and substantial potential recovery.	U.S. urges careful scrutiny but acknowledges the negotiated result.	Settlement granted as fair, reasonable, and adequate.
Whether the common fund may include principal, interest, and statutory fees for fee calculation.	Class counsel argues inclusion of all three components is proper under precedent.	Government notes lack of uniform precedent and potential overreach.	Court approved common fund composition including principal and interest; statutory fees allocated separately.
Whether 30% contingency fee is reasonable for a large Rails-to-Trails settlement.	Class counsel contends 30% is reasonable given complexity and scale.	No specific opposition beyond acknowledged standards.	Scaled 30% approach approved: 30% of first 50M, 25% of next 50M, 20% over 100M; fee reduced from 35% in light of scale.
Whether the scaled fee methodology is appropriate for this large fund.	Scaled approach appropriately recognises case features.	Not explicitly opposed; relies on precedent.	Court adopted a scaled structure to prevent windfall and reflect case factors.
Whether notice and fairness hearing satisfied due process for class members.	Notice distributed with individualized settlement amounts; majority consented.	Not contested; objections were limited.	Notice and fairness hearing found adequate; settlement approved.

Key Cases Cited

Raulerson v. United States, 108 Fed. Cl. 675 (2013) (guides fee awards in common fund settlements; supports scaled approach)
Voth Oil Co. v. United States, 108 Fed. Cl. 98 (2012) (fee considerations in large takings settlements; common fund analysis)
Moore v. United States, 63 Fed. Cl. 781 (2005) (lodestar and contingency considerations; advocate for reasonableness review)
In re Cendant Corp. PRIDES Litig., 243 F.3d 722 (3d Cir. 2001) (case-by-case fee analysis in large class actions)
Goldberger v. Integrated Res. Inc., 209 F.3d 43 (2d Cir. 2000) (benchmark concerns for percentage-based fees in class actions)
Venegas v. Mitchell, 495 U.S. 82 (1990) (fee-shifting statutes versus contingent fees; enforceability of contingent fee)