Bronson v. BOARD OF EDUC. OF CITY SCHOOL DIST.

• Decision Date: 22 June 1984
• Docket Number: No. C-1-74-205.,C-1-74-205.
• Citation: 604 F. Supp. 68
• Parties: Mona BRONSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF the CITY OF CINCINNATI, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio

604 F. Supp. 68

Mona BRONSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF the CITY OF CINCINNATI, et al., Defendants.

No. C-1-74-205.

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, W.D.

June 22, 1984.

Thomas I. Atkins, Reginald C. Govan, Office of General Counsel, NAACP Special Contribution Fund, Brooklyn Heights, N.Y., Thomas I. Atkins, Reginald C. Govan, NAACP Litigation Office, Cincinnati, Ohio, William Taylor, Center for Nat. Policy Review, Washington, D.C., Trudy D. Rauh, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Bronson plaintiff.

Robert W. Blackmore, Cincinnati, Ohio, for plaintiff Beaty.

George E. Roberts, III, Ennis & Roberts, Cincinnati, Ohio, for defendant Lockland City School Dist.

Michael E. Maundrell, Rendigs, Fry, Kiely & Dennis, Cincinnati, Ohio, for defendant Princeton City School Dist.

Lawrence McTurnan, McTurnan & Meyer, Indianapolis, Ind., for defendants Finneytown Local School Dist., Forest Hills Local School Dist., Northwest Local School Dist., Three Rivers Local School Dist., Hamilton County School Dist.

John C. Elam, Suzanne K. Richards, Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, Columbus, Ohio, for defendant Wyoming City School Dist.

James W. Harper, Asst. Pros. Atty., Cincinnati, Ohio, for defendant Oak Hills Local City School Dist.

Arnold Morelli, Bauer, Morelli & Heyd, Cincinnati, Ohio, for defendant Green-Hills Forest Park City School Dist.

William E. Santen, William B. Singer, Santen, Santen & Hughes Co., LPA, Cincinnati, Ohio, for defendant Sycamore City School Dist.

John A. Lloyd, Jr., Sally Conley Lux, Glen Weissenberger, Cincinnati, Ohio, for defendant City of Cincinnati School Dist. G. David Schiering, A. David Nichols, Metzger, Phillips & Nichols Co., LPA, Cincinnati, Ohio, Mark O'Neill, Weston, Hurd, Fallon, Paisley & Howley, Cleveland, Ohio, for State of Ohio, Special Counsel to Attorney General, State of Ohio; Represents State Bd. of Educ.

James W. Farrell, Jr., Mark A. Vander Laan, Dinsmore, Shohl, Coates & Deupree, Cincinnati, Ohio, for defendants Deer Park City School Dist., Madeira City School Dist., Mariemont City School Dist., North College Hill City School Dist., Norwood City School Dist., St. Bernard-Elmwood Place City School Dist., Reading Community City School Dist.

Bruce I. Petrie, Sr., John B. Pinney, Graydon, Head & Ritchey, Cincinnati, Ohio, for defendant Indian Hill Exempted Village School Dist.

DECISION AND ENTRY FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT OF THIS LAWSUIT IS FAIR, REASONABLE AND ADEQUATE; ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AS A CONSENT DECREE AND ORDERING CINCINNATI DEFENDANTS AND STATE DEFENDANTS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE

RICE, District Judge.

This lawsuit was initiated on May 29, 1974, when the Plaintiffs, a group of Cincinnati schoolchildren and their parents, filed their Complaint. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of Cincinnati ("Board"), its members and the Superintendent of the Cincinnati Public Schools ("Cincinnati Defendants"), together with the Ohio State Board of Education and Superintendent of Public Instruction for the State of Ohio ("State Defendants"), established and maintained the Cincinnati Public Schools as a racially segregated school system (doc. # 1).¹ Plaintiffs alleged that this violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

After this cause was filed, the parties undertook exhaustive discovery. Thousands of documents were exchanged. Numerous depositions were taken. Judge Porter ordered the case certified as a class action, see docs. # 266 and 267, defining the class as, "all students presently attending or who will in the future attend schools in the public school system of the City of Cincinnati and the parents of such children." Id.

During this period from the filing of this lawsuit through mid-1982, the parties litigated the question of the preclusive effect of Deal v. Cincinnati Board of Education, 244 F.Supp. 572 (S.D.Ohio 1965), aff'd, 369 F.2d 55 (6th Cir.1966), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 847, 88 S.Ct. 39, 19 L.Ed.2d 114 (1967), aff'd on other issues, 419 F.2d 1387 (6th Cir.1969), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 962, 91 S.Ct. 1630, 29 L.Ed.2d 128 (1971). See Bronson v. Board of Education of the City School District of the City of Cincinnati ("Bronson I"), 525 F.2d 344 (6th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 934, 96 S.Ct. 1665, 48 L.Ed. 175 (1976); Bronson v. Board of Education of the City School District of the City of Cincinnati ("Bronson II"), 687 F.2d 836 (6th Cir.1982).

Ultimately, in December, 1982, the Court set a trial date of January 10, 1984 for the liability phase of this case. See doc. # 559. On December 19, 1983, this Court appointed the Hon. David S. Porter, Senior District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, and Mr. Warner Petterson of the Community Relations Division of the United States Department of Justice, to direct settlement efforts. From December 19, 1983 until the eve of trial, Judge Porter and Mr. Petterson, with great dedication and diligence, directed the parties in settlement discussions. On January 12, 1984, the day the liability phase of the trial was to commence,² the Court postponed the trial until January 17, 1984 and ordered the parties to continue negotiations. On January 16, 1984, the negotiations broke down, and Judge Porter and Mr. Petterson discharged the negotiators.³ Nonetheless, on January 17, 1984, the Court once again postponed the trial⁴ and ordered the parties to resume negotiations. The parties bargained intensively, often times until after midnight and throughout the weekends. This process came to fruition on February 16, 1984, when the parties reached the proposed settlement agreement which is the subject of the present proceeding.⁵

No class action can be dismissed or compromised without prior court approval. Rule 23(e), Fed.R.Civ.P.⁶ Before a court can approve a proposed settlement, it must give the class members notice of the proposed settlement and an opportunity to comment upon it. Id. The procedure for approving a settlement is a three-step process. The court must preliminarily approve the proposed settlement; then, members of the class must be given notice of the proposed settlement and after a hearing, the Court must decide whether the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate. Williams v. Vukovich, 720 F.2d 909 (6th Cir.1983); Stotts v. Memphis Fire Department ("Stotts"), 679 F.2d 541 (6th Cir.1982), reversed on other grounds, sub nom. Firefighters Local Union No. 1784 v. Stotts, ___ U.S. ___, 104 S.Ct. 2576, 81 L.Ed.2d 483 (1984).

In Williams v. Vukovich, supra, the Court elaborated on the standards, in this Circuit, governing preliminary court approval of a proposed settlement.

Initially, a proposed decree should be preliminarily approved. The court should determine whether the compromise embodied within the decree is illegal or tainted with collusion. See Stotts, 679 F.2d at 551; United States v. City of Miami, 614 F.2d 1322, 1230-31 (5th Cir. 1980), on reh'g, 644 F.2d 435 (5th Cir. 1981); Flinn v. FMC Corp., 528 F.2d 1169, 1173 (4th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 967, 96 S.Ct. 1462, 47 L.Ed.2d 734 (1976). The court's determination should be based on its familiarity with the issues, the results of discovery, and the character of the negotiations prior to the entry of the decree. Preliminary approval is critical for a decree which is the product of arms-length negotiations. With such approval a decree is presumptively reasonable. See Stotts, 679 F.2d at 551; Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. v. Village of Arlington Heights, 616 F.2d 1006, 1013 (7th Cir. 1980); United States v. City of Miami, 614 F.2d at 1333. An individual who objects, consequently, has a heavy burden of demonstrating that the decree is unreasonable. See Stotts, 679 F.2d at 551; Village of Arlington Heights, 616 F.2d at 1014.

720 F.2d at 921.

By Decision and Order of March 15, 1984 (doc. # 713), this Court preliminarily approved the proposed settlement agreement. This Court based its preliminary approval on its familiarity with the issues presented in this case, the discovery conducted and the character of the negotiations. This Court concluded that the proposed settlement agreement was neither illegal nor tainted with collusion and that it was the product of arms-length negotiations.

Having given preliminary approval to the proposed settlement agreement, the Court was next required to give notice to the members of the class both of the proposed settlement and that a hearing, scheduled April 6, 1984, would be held to determine whether the settlement was fair, adequate and reasonable. Williams v. Vukovich, supra; Stotts, supra. Accordingly, contemporaneous with giving its preliminary approval to the proposed settlement agreement, the Court approved the form of the notice proposed by the parties.⁷ See doc. # 713, at ¶ 2. The Court ordered that between March 16, 1984, and March 22, 1984, the approved form of the notice and the entire text of the settlement agreement be published once each in The Cincinnati Enquirer, The Cincinnati Post, The Call and Post (Cincinnati edition) and The Cincinnati Herald. Id. at ¶ 3. The notice and proposed settlement agreement was published as directed. Transcript of April 6, 1984 Hearing ("Tr.") at 24. Plaintiffs' Ex. ## 1, 2 and 3.

In addition to the Court ordered notice by publication, the members of the class and other interested persons received notice in a variety of other ways. First, since this case is of great public interest, it was covered extensively by the Cincinnati media. On February 16, 1984, the parties announced that they had reached a tentative agreement, by holding a press conference which was televised and the subject of extensive reporting in the print media.

After the proposed settlement agreement was reached and before the fairness hearing was held, the parties took steps to inform members of the community of...