Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Allen v. Dairy Farmers of America, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Vermont

November 25, 2014

ALICE H. ALLEN, LAURANCE E. ALLEN, d/b/a Al-lens Farm, GARRET SITTS, RALPH SITTS, JONATHAN HAAR, CLAUDIA HAAR, and RICHARD SWANTAK, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
DAIRY FARMERS OF AMERICA, INC., and DAIRY MARKETING SERVICES, LLC, Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART RENEWED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT BETWEEN DAIRY FARMERS OF AMERICA, INC., DAIRY MARKETING SERVICES, LLC, AND DAIRY FARMER SUBCLASSES AND SETTING A FAIRNESS HEARING (DOC. 580)

CHRISTINA REISS, Chief District Judge.

This matter came before the court on the renewed motion of the DFA/DMS and non-DFA/DMS subclasses (collectively, the "Dairy Farmers Subclasses") for preliminary approval of a proposed settlement between the Dairy Farmers Subclasses and Defendants Dairy Farmers of America, Inc. ("DFA") and Dairy Marketing Services, LLC ("DMS") (the "Proposed Settlement"). (Doc. 580.) The Dairy Farmer Subclasses, through their attorneys ("Subclass Counsel"), ask that in conjunction with preliminary approval, the court approve their proposed notices to class members and set this matter for a hearing to determine whether the Proposed Settlement is "fair, reasonable, and adequate" as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e) (the "Fairness Hearing").

I. Factual and Procedural Background.

The Proposed Settlement requires Defendants DFA and DMS to make a payment of $50 million dollars to class members in two installments, authorizes certain injunctive relief, provides for incentive payments to Class Representatives in the amount of $20, 000 per farm, and seeks a proposed attorney's fees award of $16.6 million, plus expenses, which Defendants have agreed not to oppose. Based on the number of claims that may be filed, the average payment per class member farm is estimated to be approximately $4, 000. In exchange, class members must agree to a broad release, releasing any claims they have in this action, any claims which may have been brought in this action, and any claims which in certain respects are related to this action against Defendants and other entities with whom Defendants have a relationship.[1] The parties propose no further opt-out period and oppose an expanded opportunity to opt in and join the class as beneficiaries of the Proposed Settlement.

The court initially denied preliminary approval without prejudice because the proposed notices to class members required clarifications and because the court was advised that the Class Representatives unanimously opposed the Proposed Settlement but was not informed of the grounds for their opposition. (Doc. 569.) The court has since reviewed in camera the Class Representatives' letter to the court which sets forth the grounds for their opposition.

The Class Representatives oppose the Proposed Settlement on procedural grounds, asserting that Subclass Counsel entered into the Proposed Settlement without their authority and without their consent. They oppose the Proposed Settlement on substantive grounds, arguing that: (1) the class should be expanded to include all dairy farmers who pooled their milk on Federal Milk Marketing Order 1; (2) the Proposed Settlement's provisions governing injunctive relief are inadequate in both scope and duration; and (3) a payment of $4, 000 to each class member dairy farm does not approximate the Dairy Farmer Subclasses' damages in this case and renders Subclass Counsel the primary beneficiaries of this lawsuit. In this respect, they appear to contest the proposed attorney's fee award for Subclass Counsel as excessive. Class Representatives will have an opportunity to more fully voice the grounds for their opposition at a Fairness Hearing.

Subclass Counsel counter that they conferred with and obtained authority from the Class Representatives prior to entering into the Proposed Settlement and that, in any event, no authority was necessary. They contend that no Class Representative objected to the Proposed Settlement prior to its finalization and that, again, approval of the Proposed Settlement by Class Representatives was not and is not required. They argue that the monetary amount of the Proposed Settlement is sizable and properly reflects the strengths and weaknesses of class members' claims and the risks of proceeding to trial. They contend that the Proposed Settlement's injunctive relief is broader than the relief that would have been available had class members prevailed at trial. Subclass Counsel point out that approval of their proposed attorney's fees award is not part of their request for preliminary approval.

For the following reasons, the court concludes that the Proposed Settlement satisfies the standards for preliminary approval and renders a Fairness Hearing appropriate. The court further rules that an opt-out period and a re-definition of the class are not warranted at this time, but that an expanded opportunity to opt in to the class should be available. As Subclass Counsel advise that they do not seek preliminary approval of their proposed attorney's fees award, the court does not address that request at this time.

II. Conclusions of Law and Analysis.

A. Authority to Settle and Opposition to the Proposed Settlement.

As a threshold matter, Subclass Counsel are correct in pointing out that the case law appears to permit them to settle a class action suit without authorization from class representatives. See Kincade v. Gen. Tire & Rubber Co., 635 F.2d 501, 508 (5th Cir. 1981) (concluding cases "holding that an attorney cannot settle his individual client's case without the authorization of the client are simply inapplicable" in a class action "[b]ecause of the unique nature of the attorney-client relationship in a class action" and "because... it may be impossible for the class attorney to do more than act in what he believes to be the best interests of the class as a whole") (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). In addition, Subclass Counsel persuasively argue that a court may grant preliminary and final approval of a settlement of a class action even if the class representatives oppose it. See Charron v. Wiener, 731 F.3d 241, 254 (2d Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S.Ct. 1941 (2014) (holding that "the assent of class representatives is not essential to the settlement, as long as the Rule 23 requirements are met") (citing, inter alia, Kincade, 635 F.2d at 508 ("[T]he assent of named plaintiffs is not a prerequisite to the approval of a settlement.") (internal quotation marks omitted)). This does not mean, however, that the Class Representatives' opinions regarding the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the Proposed Settlement are irrelevant. To the contrary, the reaction of the class to the Proposed Settlement remains an important consideration in determining whether the Proposed Settlement should be approved. See Joel A. v. Giuliani, 218 F.3d 132, 138 (2d Cir. 2000) (noting one of the factors to evaluate whether a class action settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate is "the reaction of the class to the settlement"); see also Kincade, 635 F.2d at 508 (noting that "the unanimous disapproval of [a] settlement by the active named plaintiffs [is] a significant factor" in evaluating whether to approve a settlement). This conclusion is underscored in the instant case where the Class Representatives have actively participated in every stage of the litigation and have a commendable understanding of both the facts and the law underpinning their claims.

B. Preliminary Approval.

"Preliminary approval of a class action settlement, in contrast to final approval, is at most a determination that there is what might be termed probable cause to submit the proposal to class members and hold a full-scale hearing as to its fairness.'" Menkes v. Stolt-Nielsen S.A., 270 F.R.D. 80, 101 (D. Conn. 2010) (quoting In re Traffic Exec. Ass'n-E. R.R.s, 627 F.2d 631, 634 (2d Cir. 1980)). It is appropriate where the settlement "is the result of serious, informed, and non-collusive negotiations, where there are no grounds to doubt its fairness and no other obvious deficiencies..., and where the settlement appears to fall within the range of possible approval." Reade-Alvarez v. Eltman, Eltman & Cooper, P.C., 237 F.R.D. 26, 33 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) (citations omitted). In making this determination, the court focusses on the "negotiating process" by which the settlement was reached and on the reasonableness and "fairness" of its "substantive" terms. Charron, 731 F.3d at 247. With regard to the latter, the court considers the following:

(1) the complexity, expense and likely duration of the litigation; (2) the reaction of the class to the settlement; (3) the stage of the proceedings and the amount of discovery completed; (4) the risks of establishing liability; (5) the risks of establishing damages; (6) the risks of maintaining the class action through the trial; (7) the ability of the defendants to withstand a greater judgment; (8) the range of reasonableness of the settlement fund in light of the best possible recovery; ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.