Sharon Raulerson v. United States
108 Fed. Cl. 675
| Fed. Cl. | 2013Background
- The United States imposed a public-trail easement on class members’ land in Beaufort County, SC in May 2009 under 16 U.S.C. § 1247(d), constituting a takings claim.
- Plaintiff Sharon Raulerson filed a Rails-to-Trails class action alleging a Fifth Amendment taking requiring just compensation.
- The Court certified the class on July 21, 2010 and oversaw discovery, settlement negotiations, and a joint appraisal to determine damages for 260 members.
- On November 27, 2012 the parties proposed a settlement: $28,796,724.70 for damages, $3,019,688.84 prejudgment interest, $1,475,000.04 for attorney’s fees, and $225,000 for URA costs, totaling $33,516,413.58.
- Plaintiffs filed a separate fee motion on November 28, 2012 seeking 33% of the common fund, plus URA costs; preliminary approval was granted December 6, 2012, with a fairness hearing on January 17, 2013, where no objections were raised by class members.
- The Court granted final approval of the settlement and approved the fee motion, determining the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate under RCFC 23(e)(2) and the fees reasonable under RCFC 23(h).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate under RCFC 23(e)(2). | Raulerson argues the settlement fairly compensates class members. | United States contends the settlement appropriately balances risks and recovery. | The settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate; approved. |
| Whether the fee provision (33% of the common fund) is reasonable under RCFC 23(h). | Raulerson/Class Counsel maintain 33% is appropriate given risks and resources. | United States contends the fee should be within customary ranges for common funds. | The fee request is reasonable and approved. |
| Whether the URA costs award is reasonable as part of the fee arrangement. | Raulerson acknowledges URA costs are part of the overall fee framework but supports reasonableness. | United States supports a reasonable approximation of URA costs under the statute. | URA costs award is reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dauphin Island Property Owners Association, Inc. v. United States, 90 Fed. Cl. 95 (2009) (six-factor framework for evaluating settlement fairness; deference to court discretion)
- Sabo v. United States, 102 Fed. Cl. 619 (2011) (settlement favorable where most factors support approval; emphasis on overall fairness)
- Berkley v. United States, 59 Fed. Cl. 675 (2004) (uniformity of relief and class-wide considerations in settlement assessment)
- National Treasury Employees Union v. United States, 54 Fed. Cl. 791 (2002) (guidance on evaluating adequacy and fairness of settlements and counsel fees)
- Moore v. United States, 63 Fed. Cl. 781 (2005) (common-fund fee framework; exclusive focus on lodestar and reasonable percentage in similar cases)
- Quimby v. United States, 107 Fed. Cl. 126 (2012) (multi-factor analysis for reasonable common-fund attorney’s fees; 30% benchmark referenced)