In re Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation
856 F. Supp. 2d 1
| D.D.C. | 2011Background
- This action grants final certification of a settlement class under Rule 23(b)(1)(B) and approves a settlement resolving claims of about 40,000 Pigford II plaintiffs against USDA.
- Pigford I (Consent Decree, 1999) created Track A (substantial evidence, $50,000 cap, debt/tax relief) and Track B (preponderance, full damages) adjudications via neutral adjudicators, with a Monitor for review.
- 2008 Farm Bill and the 2010 Claims Resolution Act (CRAct) introduced Pigford II, authorizing a limited funding framework ($100M initially, later $1.25B) and directing resolution by neutrals rather than courts.
- Settlement maintains two-track processes and creates a Claims Administrator and an Ombudsman to manage claims, with specific eligibility and documentation requirements for Track A and Track B.
- Court acknowledges limited funds require pro rata reductions andThresholds, and sets mechanisms for 180-day claim submission, equitable fund distribution, and fee arrangements for class counsel.
- Court concludes the class satisfies Rule 23(a) (numerosity, typicality, commonality, adequacy) and Rule 23(b)(1)(B) (limited fund) and approves the settlement as fair, adequate, and reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Pigford II settlement class appropriate under Rule 23(b)(1)(B)? | MovPls—limited fund supports class treatment. | USDA—fund constraints justify limited-fund class. | Yes; certified under Rule 23(b)(1)(B). |
| Is the fund properly defined, limited, and dedicated to class claims? | Fund is dedicated to overwhelming claims and capped as Congress directed. | Fund limits are legitimate Congressional decisions, not improper cap. | Yes; fund deemed limited and properly dedicated. |
| Do the Rule 23(a) prerequisites and commonality support class certification? | Plaintiffs share common grievance: equitable distribution of limited funds. | No fatal deficiencies; common questions predominate. | Yes; numerosity, typicality, commonality, and adequacy satisfied. |
| Is the Track A/B claim-adjudication framework, with 180-day filing window, fair and workable? | Structured to balance timely relief with limited funds. | Framework manages risk and cost; no need for additional appeals/monitor. | Yes; framework fair, adequate, and reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. 815 (U.S. 1999) (limited fund class action criteria; three Ortiz requirements)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (commonality and class-wide proof considerations)
- Pigford v. Glickman, 185 F.R.D. 82 (D.D.C. 1999) (origin of Pigford I consent decree; Track A/B framework)
- In re Keepseagle v. Johanns, 236 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 2006) (fee and settlement considerations in USDA discrimination case)
- In re Black Farmers Discrimination Litig., 806 F. Supp. 2d 138 (D.D.C. 2011) (fairness hearing and settlement approval in pigford-like context)