Hunneshagen Family Trust of June 25, 1999 v. United States
121 Fed. Cl. 51
| Fed. Cl. | 2015Background
- Plaintiffs are landowners along a 17-mile former railroad corridor in Indiana who alleged the federal interim trail use constituted a Fifth Amendment taking.
- Case filed in 2009; class certified in October 2009; parties engaged in a joint appraisal and settlement process beginning in 2012.
- The Indiana Supreme Court ruled that public trail use was not within the scope of railroad easements (Howard), which informed settlement negotiations.
- The Government agreed to pay $278,000 in principal (fair market value), $167,968.10 in pre-judgment interest, and $376,800 in attorneys’ fees and costs under the URA, for a total settlement of $822,768.10.
- Notice was provided to class members; 46 of 50 responded, no objections were filed, two offered non-substantive comments.
- Court held a fairness hearing and approved the class settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e); five claimants’ claims were dismissed for lack of property interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the proposed class settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e) | Settlement provides full or substantial compensation based on joint appraisals and avoids litigation risks | Settlement is a negotiated resolution informed by appraisal and state-law guidance; adequate to resolve claims | Approved: court found settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate |
| Adequacy of class notice and class reaction | Notice adequately informed class; class largely consents | Notice procedure satisfied preliminarily approved plan; no objections weigh in favor | Approved: adequate notice; lack of objections supports settlement |
| Reasonableness of attorney’s fees under URA §4654(c) | Counsel sought fees to be paid by Government per URA; fees were negotiated and reasonable | Government agreed to pay fees; Attorney General’s judgment is entitled to deference | Approved: fees ($376,800) found fair and reasonable given deference to Attorney General |
| Whether certain named plaintiffs have compensable property interests | Plaintiffs claiming interests along corridor assert compensable easements or interests | Parties agreed five named plaintiffs did not own property interests at time of taking | Court dismissed claims of five named plaintiffs for lack of requisite property interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. United States, 63 Fed. Cl. 781 (Fed. Cl. 2005) (Rule 23(e) settlement standard and court’s approval role)
- In re General Motors Corp. Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Prod. Liab. Litig., 55 F.3d 768 (3d Cir. 1995) (factors for evaluating class settlements)
- Evans v. Jeff D., 475 U.S. 717 (1986) (limitations on court’s role in settlement approval)
- Raulerson v. United States, 108 Fed. Cl. 675 (Fed. Cl. 2013) (discussion of factors relevant to class settlement fairness)
- Sabo v. United States, 102 Fed. Cl. 619 (Fed. Cl. 2011) (enumerating factors to assess class settlement)
- Dauphin Island Property Owners Ass’n, Inc. v. United States, 90 Fed. Cl. 95 (Fed. Cl. 2009) (deference to plaintiff counsel’s judgment and settlement analysis)
- Berkley v. United States, 59 Fed. Cl. 675 (Fed. Cl. 2004) (class-wide fairness principles)
- Howard v. United States, 964 N.E.2d 779 (Ind. 2012) (Indiana Supreme Court ruling that public trail use is not within scope of railroad easements)