You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

In Re Black Farmers Discrimination

Citations: 820 F. Supp. 2d 78; 2011 WL 5114830Docket: Misc. No. 08-0511 (PLF)

Court: District Court, District of Columbia; October 27, 2011; Federal District Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The case involves the final approval of a class action settlement in the Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation, specifically addressing late-filing requests under the Pigford v. Glickman Consent Decree from 1999 to 2008. The court certified the settlement class, appointing specific individuals as Class Representatives and designating attorneys from various law firms as Class Counsel to execute the settlement. The settlement includes a detailed structure for attorneys' fees and costs, capping individual claims under Tracks A and B and establishing a Cost Cap with provisions for additional requests. Epiq Systems, Inc. was appointed as the Claims Administrator, while JAMS was approved as the Neutral for Tracks A and B. The Class waived all claims against the United States, with the court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement. Appeals require a bond for costs, and specific communication guidelines with potential Class Members were established. The Settlement Agreement is not an admission of liability by any parties, and the court's judgment is final, subject to appeal.

Legal Issues Addressed

Appeal Process and Communication Conditions

Application: The court set conditions for appeals, requiring a bond for costs, and outlined permissible communications with potential Class Members.

Reasoning: Any individual seeking to appeal the final judgment must post a bond of $1,500 with the Court to cover appeal costs, with the Court reserving the right to require additional bonding later.

Appointment of Class Representatives and Counsel

Application: The court appointed specific individuals as Class Representatives and designated certain attorneys from multiple law firms as Class Counsel, responsible for executing the settlement agreement.

Reasoning: James Copeland, Earl Moorer (on behalf of the Estate of John Moorer), and Marshallene McNeil were appointed as Class Representatives. Additionally, Andrew H. Marks (Crowell Moring LLP), Henry Sanders (Chestnut Sanders Sanders Pettaway Campbell, LLC), and Gregorio Francis (Morgan & Morgan, P.A.) were appointed as Lead Class Counsel, responsible for executing the settlement agreement.

Attorney's Fees and Costs

Application: The court outlined the structure for attorneys' fees and expenses, setting caps for individual claims under Track A and Track B, and establishing a Cost Cap with provisions for additional requests.

Reasoning: Attorneys' fees and expenses will be awarded by the Court at a date to be determined, ranging from 4.1% to 7.4% of the Fee Base as defined in the Settlement Agreement. Class Counsel is prohibited from enforcing any existing contingency fee arrangements with Class Members.

Claims Administration and Neutral Appointment

Application: Epiq Systems, Inc. was appointed as the Claims Administrator and JAMS as the Track A and Track B Neutral, with specific procedures and requirements for their roles.

Reasoning: Epiq Systems, Inc. is appointed as Claims Administrator, and JAMS is approved as the Track A and Track B Neutral, with specific individuals designated as Leads for each track.

Class Settlement Approval

Application: The court granted final approval for a proposed class settlement for individuals who submitted late-filing requests under the Pigford v. Glickman Consent Decree.

Reasoning: The court granted the motion for final approval of a proposed class settlement in the Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation, specifically for individuals who submitted late-filing requests under the Pigford v. Glickman Consent Decree between October 13, 1999, and June 18, 2008, without a determination on their discrimination complaints.

Waiver of Claims and Jurisdiction Retention

Application: Class members waived all claims against the United States and other parties involved, and the court retained jurisdiction for enforcement of the Settlement Agreement.

Reasoning: The Class Representatives, Class members, and their heirs waive all claims against the United States and the Secretary related to the Consolidated Case, including claims for monetary relief and rights under Public Laws 110-234 and 110-246.