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 4 of 51panoply of subjects. During various stages of discovery, theparties also exchanged settlement proposals and participated insettlement discussions with a number of court-designatedfacilitators. Each settlement attempt, although not initiallysuccessful, brought the parties closer together.In 2002, following a discovery dispute, the Courtappointed The Honorable Louis C. Bechtle, former Chief Judge ofthe United States District Court for the Eastern District ofPennsylvania, as Discovery Master in the case. With JudgeBechtle’s guidance, the parties completed discovery on May 30,2003. Thereafter, the parties filed cross-motions for summaryjudgment, along with responses and replies. On March 24, 2004,the Court heard oral argument on the summary judgment motions.After oral argument, and at the Court’s suggestion, the partiesagreed to reconvene settlement discussions, with Judge Bechtleserving as a mediator.From July 2004 to December 2004, the partiesnegotiated--through mediation sessions with Judge Bechtle, faceto-facemeetings with negotiating teams that represented theparties, and the exchange of correspondence--a settlement thataddressed all of the issues in the case. On December 21, 2004,the parties filed a joint motion for provisional approval of theproposed Settlement Agreement (doc. no. 295), which the Court4
Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 5 of 514granted on April 29, 2005 (doc. no. 305). The Court also (1)4As the Court indicated in its order grantingprovisional approval of the proposed Settlement Agreement, citingto its decision in Samuel v. Equicredit Corp., No. Civ. 00-6196,2002 WL 970396, at *1 n.1 (E.D. Pa. May 6, 2002),(doc. no. 305).[a] decision granting preliminaryapproval does not bind the court togranting final approval. As notedby the Third Circuit, “[the]preliminary determinationestablishes an initial presumptionof fairness . . . .” In re GeneralMotors Corp., 55 F.3d 768, 785 (3dCir. 1995) (emphasis added). “Ifthe proposed settlement appears tobe the product of serious,informed, non-collusivenegotiations, has no obviousdeficiencies, does not improperlygrant preferential treatment toclass representatives or segmentsof the class, and falls within therange of possible approval, thenthe court should direct that thenotice be given to the classmembers of a formal fairnesshearing . . . .” Manual forComplex Litigation, Second § 30.44(1985). In addition, “[t]he courtmay find that the settlementproposal contains some merit, iswithin the range of reasonablenessrequired for a settlement offer, oris presumptively valid.” Newbergon Class Actions § 11.25 (1992).In this case, the court finds thatthe settlement falls within the“range of possible approval” andshall be submitted to the classmembers for their consideration andfor a hearing to determine whetherthe settlement will be approved bythe court.5
Page 6 and 7: 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?