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 42 of 51parties would most likely have to wait years for resolution ofthe case.As it currently stands, this case has been before theCourt for over eleven years. Most of the individually namedPlaintiffs have graduated from public high school and will notdirectly benefit from the new procedures being implemented underthe Settlement Agreement. Moreover, Plaintiffs initiated thisaction to effectuate change in the future policies and practicesof PDE and other Commonwealth agencies, all of which are achievedby the Settlement Agreement. Considering these factors, theCourt finds that further litigation is not likely to result in agreater recovery for the class and would entail significantfinancial costs and risks.In light of the above discussion, the Court concludesthat the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement arefair, reasonable, and adequate.V. OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTThe Court received nineteen objections to the9provisionally approved Settlement Agreement. Although the Courtdirected objectors to file their concerns with the Clerk’s9The Court prepared a summary of all objections thatwere either filed with the Clerk’s Office or submitted to theCourt prior to the Fairness Hearing. This summary was filedafter the Fairness Hearing so that the parties could comment onthem in post-Fairness Hearing briefs (doc. no. 320).42
Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 43 of 51Office, only three objectors followed this directive. One ofthose three objectors later sought leave from the Court towithdraw the objection, which the Court granted (doc. no. 313).Out of the nineteen objections, three were submitted by non-classmembers, which included identical objection letters from twelveschool districts, one objection by a former teacher, and oneobjection by the Berks County Intermediate Unit and ChesterCounty Intermediate Unit. The Court will not directly entertainobjections from non-class members. See Fed. R. Civ. P.23(e)(4)(A). Notably, some of the objections submitted by nonclassmembers have also been asserted by class members.First, of the 255,264 members of the class, onlysixteen class members (or parents of class members) filedobjections. These objections to the Settlement Agreement can bebroken down into eight categories, each of which will bediscussed in turn. 1010The Berks County Intermediate Unit and Chester CountyIntermediate Unit (the “Intermediate Units”)--non-parties to thisaction--filed a motion to intervene for purposes of filing amotion to strike the proposed Settlement Agreement (doc. nos. 303and 304), which the Court denied. Although the IntermediateUnits have no standing to object to the Settlement Agreement,they did assert a procedural issue that is worth comment. Underthe Commonwealth Documents Law, 45 Pa. Stat. Ann. §§ 1102-1602,administrative agencies must follow specialized procedures forimplementing a new standard of conduct. The parties to theaction vehemently deny that the Settlement Agreement creates newor modified standards of conduct.As one Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court stated:43
Page 4 and 5: Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?