Jenkins v. United States
09-241
| Fed. Cl. | Aug 25, 2017Background
- This rails-to-trails takings class action concerns conversion of a Dallas County, Iowa railroad corridor to a recreational trail; the court previously certified the class.
- On appeal the Federal Circuit held appraisals must account for physical remnants of the railroad when valuing property pre-taking.
- On remand the class was divided for settlement: Subclass I (26 claimants) settled and judgment entered; Subclass II consists of one remaining class member, the Ronald K. Bender Revocable Trust.
- Parties obtained new appraisals reflecting the Federal Circuit ruling, negotiated, and reached a compromise settlement for Subclass II after exchanging appraisal reports.
- Proposed relief: $13,416.50 principal, $10,410.96 interest through June 1, 2017, daily interest of $2.24 thereafter, plus $36,659.57 in URA statutory attorneys’ fees and costs.
- Notice was sent; the lone class member expressly approved the settlement, did not object, and did not appear at the fairness hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the proposed class settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate under RCFC 23(e) | Settlement reflects compromise between new appraisals; fair given valuation uncertainty | Settlement resolves remand valuation dispute without collusion and is reasonable | Approved: court found settlement fair, reasonable, adequate |
| Whether notice and class reaction were adequate | Class member received notice and approved settlement | Government relied on class member's approval and lack of objections | Adequate: notice sent; class member approved and did not object |
| Whether attorneys’ fees and costs under the URA are reasonable | Counsel sought $36,659.57 per URA for fees and costs | Government agreed to URA amount as statutory entitlement | Approved: court found fees and costs fair and consistent with Haggart precedent |
| Whether there was collusion or other procedural deficiencies in reaching settlement | Parties contend appraisals and negotiations occurred at arm’s length | Government argued no collusion; settlement based on independent appraisals | No collusion found; court accepted process (new appraisals, negotiations) |
Key Cases Cited
- Jenkins v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 641 (court certified class and earlier proceedings) (background on class certification and proceedings)
- Rasmuson v. United States, 807 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (appraisals must account for physical remnants of railroad)
- Haggart v. Woodley, 809 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (standards for approving URA attorneys’ fees; cited for fee reasonableness)
- Raulerson v. United States, 108 Fed. Cl. 675 (2013) (factors court considers in evaluating class settlements)
- Sabo v. United States, 102 Fed. Cl. 619 (2011) (factors for assessing fairness of class action settlements)
- Adams v. United States, 107 Fed. Cl. 74 (2012) (court’s limited role in approving settlements; cannot alter terms)