Opinion Approving Settlement - Public Interest Law Center of ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 32 of 51sound discretion of the district court.” Girsh v. Jepson, 521F.2d 153, 157 (3d Cir. 1975).Before delving into legal analysis, it is important todelineate the role of the Court in the shaping of the publicpolicy choices that are embedded in the Settlement Agreement.Contrary to the expectations of some who object to the SettlementAgreement or who appeared at the Fairness Hearing, it is not theCourt’s role (or intent) to superintend from henceforth thedelivery of educational services to the members of the class, orto adjudicate individual disputes between parents and the schooldistricts, or to pick and choose among programs or policies to beimplemented by the Commonwealth or its school districts. Whetherthe Settlement Agreement embodies optimum educational choices orstrikes the proper allocation of resources among competingeducational needs is not the business of the Court. The task ofgiving life to the statutory mandate of providing a “freeappropriate public education” to children throughout theCommonwealth and to fund those mandates adequately will remain,as it should, under the stewardship of the executive andlegislative branches of state government, and not the Court. 20U.S.C. § 1412; 34 C.F.R. § 300.13. Rather, the role of the Courtis focused and more modest, which is simply to ensure that thepublic policy choices embodied in the Settlement Agreement arenot inconsistent with federal or state law.32
Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 33 of 51In addition, the Court has the statutory role ofverifying that the Settlement Agreement is “fair, reasonable, andadequate.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1)(C). In Girsh, the ThirdCircuit enumerated certain factors that district courts mayconsider in determining whether to grant final approval of aclass action settlement. Id. at 157. The Girsh factors include:(1) the complexity, expense andlikely duration of the litigation .. .; (2) the reaction of the classto the settlement . . . ; (3) thestage of the proceedings and theamount of discovery completed . . .; (4) the risks of establishingliability . . . ; (5) the risks ofestablishing damages . . . ; (6)the risks of maintaining the classaction through the trial . . . ;(7) the ability of the defendantsto withstand a greater judgment;(8) the range of reasonableness ofthe settlement fund in light of thebest possible recovery . . . ; (9)the range of reasonableness of thesettlement fund to a possiblerecovery in light of all theattendant risks of litigation . . ..Id. (quoting City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d 448, 463(2d Cir. 1974)).These factors, however, are not exclusive. Nor arethey all relevant to every class action. Id. at 156 (stating“[s]ome of the factors which are relevant to a determination ofthe fairness of a settlement [are] . . . as follows.”). In fact,the Third Circuit has suggested that district courts consider33
Page 4 and 5: Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330

Opinion Approving Settlement - Public Interest Law Center of ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?