Lambert v. United States, 12-395

Plaintiffs are property owners in Shelby County, Tennessee who sued under the Takings Clause after a railroad corridor was converted to a recreational trail (rails-to-trails claim).
The parties previously reached a class settlement that the Court granted final approval on December 16, 2015. That settlement included a 30% contingency fee award to class counsel.
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Haggart v. United States (809 F.3d 1336) required reconsideration of attorneys’ fees treatment in such settlements.
The parties submitted a revised settlement that preserves each class member’s principal recovery ($3,962,282.16 total) plus $1,179,451.00 interest through Dec. 31, 2016, but replaces the 30% contingency award with fees recoverable under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (URA): $256,862.10 in fees and $20,875.71 in costs.
Notice was sent; 68 of 88 claimants expressly approved; no formal objections were filed, but three class members submitted comments (concern about fee amount, a question about recalculation, and a request that interest continue to accrue).
The Court held a fairness hearing, reviewed the submissions, and found the revised settlement (including URA fees) fair, reasonable, and adequate, entering judgment for the subclass I plaintiffs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the revised settlement remains fair and adequate after Haggart required reconsideration of attorney fees	Plaintiffs supported the revised settlement that keeps full recoveries and converts counsel’s recovery to URA-authorized fees/costs	Government agreed to the revised settlement and entry of judgment consistent with URA fee treatment	Court approved the revised settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate
Whether attorneys’ fees should be awarded under the URA rather than a contingency percentage	Plaintiffs/class counsel accepted URA calculation of fees and costs instead of prior 30% contingency award	Government relied on Haggart and URA framework to limit fees to statutory URA amounts	Court found the URA fees ($256,862.10) and costs ($20,875.71) fair and consistent with Haggart
Whether commenters’ concerns defeat final approval (fee amount, recalculation, continued interest)	Commenters sought clarification or expressed concern but did not object to settlement approval	Government and class counsel responded explaining fee treatment, recalculation status, and that interest will continue to accrue until payment	Court concluded comments did not undermine fairness; interest will continue to accrue and individual questions were addressed

Haggart v. United States, 809 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (addresses attorneys’ fee recovery in rails-to-trails takings cases and URA application)
Bailey v. United States, 128 Fed. Cl. 550 (Fed. Cl. 2016) (class settlement fairness review under RCFC 23(e))
Hunneshagen Family Trust of June 25, 1999 v. United States, 121 Fed. Cl. 51 (Fed. Cl. 2015) (court’s discretion in accepting or rejecting class settlements)
Adams v. United States, 107 Fed. Cl. 74 (Fed. Cl. 2012) (limitations on court altering proposed settlements)
Evans v. Jeff D., 475 U.S. 717 (U.S. 1986) (standards on judicial involvement in class settlement approval)