Bynum v. Government of Dist. of Columbia, CIV.A. 02-956(RCL).
| Decision Date | 31 August 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV.A. 02-956(RCL).,CIV.A. 02-956(RCL). |
| Citation | 384 F.Supp.2d 342 |
| Parties | Marcus BYNUM, et al Plaintiffs v. GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
William Claiborne, Washington, DC, Barrett S. Litt, Litt, Estuar, Harrison, Miller & Kitson, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Lynn Cunningham, Professor of Clinical Law, Dubois, WY, for Plaintiffs.
Maria C. Amato, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Civil Litigation Division, Richard S. Love, Chief, Equity I, Civil Litigation Division, Equity Section I, George C. Valentine, Deputy Attorney General, Civil Litigation Division, Washington, DC, for District of Columbia.
ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT, CLASS NOTICE AND NOTICE OF HEARING
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
this Order, and also incorporates Exhibits C through E, as amended August 31, 2005, thereto. All terms defined therein shall have the same meaning in this Order.
2. The Settlement Agreement is hereby preliminarily approved, subject to further consideration thereof at the Fairness Hearing provided for below. The Court finds that the settlement amount of $12,000,000.00 is within the range such that final settlement approval may be appropriate, following notice to the Class and after consideration of any objections. The Court preliminarily finds that the terms of the Settlement Agreement are within the range of what would constitute a fair, reasonable, and adequate settlement in the best interests of the Class as a whole, and that the terms of the Settlement Agreement satisfy the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(e) and due process requirements.
3. The Court has set the following dates for purposes of this class action
a. Final class identifying information must be provided to class counsel in computerized form by the District of Columbia by September 20, 2005;
b. Mailing Class and Settlement Notice to Class: Must be postmarked by October 20, 2005;
c. E-mailing Class and Settlement Notice on Superior Court Trial Lawyers Association list serve: By October 20, 2005;
d. Posting the Notice (along with extra copies of the Claim Form) by the District of Columbia on each Unit of the D.C. Jail and the Correctional Treatment Facility: By October 20, 2005;
e. Publication of summary notice by other methods: effected by November 7, 2005;
f. Filing of Plaintiffs' Motion for Award of Attorney's Fees and Costs: Must be filed by November 7, 2005;
g. Filing of Class Members' Objections to any aspect of the Settlement (including Plaintiffs' Motion for Award of Attorney's Fees and Costs): Must be filed by December 23, 2005;
h. Deadline to opt-out: Must be postmarked or received by December 23, 2005;
i. Deadline for filing class claims: Must be postmarked or received by December 23, 2005;
j. Filing of Opposition or Reply to Objections (including to objections to award of attorney's fees and costs): Must be filed by January 20, 2006; and
k. Final Approval Hearing: January 20, 2006 at 10:00 a.m.
4. In the event that the class notice is not mailed and initially published within the time specified herein, the subsequent dates contained herein will be deferred for the number of additional days before such notice occurs without the need for additional court approval. However, the Court must approve any change of the date of the Final Approval Hearing.
5. The Court has previously certified both an Overdetention Class and a Strip Search Class under both Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). This is a hybrid class action, certified under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2) with regard to seeking injunctive relief on over-detentions, and strip searches of inmates under the definition of the strip search class set forth herein. Therefore, regarding prospective injunctive relief, no member of the class may opt-out. With regards to monetary relief the class is certified under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3) and class members have a right to opt out of the monetary relief stage.
The Over-Detention Injunctive Relief Class is defined as:
(a) Each person who has been, is or will be incarcerated in any District of Columbia Department of Corrections facility beginning in the three years preceding the filing of this action on or about May 16, 2002 up to and until the date this case is terminated; and (b) who was not released, or, in the future will not be released by midnight on the date on which the person is entitled to be released by court order or the date on which the basis for his or her detention has otherwise expired.
The Over-Detention Monetary Relief Class is defined the same as above except that it ends on August 31, 2005.
The Strip Search Injunctive Relief Class is defined as:
Each person who, beginning in the three years, preceding the filing of this action, up until the date this case is terminated, has been, is or will be (i) in the custody of the Department of Corrections; (ii) taken to Court from a Department of Corrections facility; (iii) ordered released by the court or otherwise became entitled to release by virtue of the court appearance because the charge on which he had been held was no longer pending or was dismissed at the hearing, was ordered released on his own recognizance, or had posted bail, was sentenced to time served, was acquitted or was otherwise entitled to release; (iv) was returned to a Department of Corrections facility, to be processed out of Department of Corrections custody; and (v) was subjected to a strip search and/or visual body cavity search without any individualized finding of reasonable or probable cause that he was concealing contraband or weapons; before being released, regardless of whether he was over-detained.
The Strip Search Monetary Relief Class is defined the same as above except that it ends on August 31, 2005.
6. The plaintiffs' claims for prospective relief regarding the strip search class will be resolved by the D.C. Department of Corrections' plan to divert inmates ordered released or otherwise entitled to release from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia to a secure location outside of the open population of the D.C. Jail or another location where they will not be subject to a strip search, absent individualized suspicion, while the record review for detainers and warrants and property retrieval are conducted prior to release. This process shall be implemented on or before August 31, 2005. The Monetary Relief Strip Search Class will extend through that date.
7. The parties will defer the initiation of class notice until after August 31, 2005.
8. If the District has not accomplished the change in the strip search procedure by August 31, 2005, then any persons strip searched after that time will have a new claim for that subsequent search, which is not covered by this settlement..
9. In addition, the Strip Search Injunctive Relief Class and class counsel will be free at that point to pursue litigation in this case to enjoin the District's continuing Strip Search policy, and the District will be free to oppose it. Any fees awarded to the class as prevailing parties for such litigation shall be separate from the Class Fund Attorney's Fees.
10. Marcus Bynum, Kim Nabinette, Leroy S. Thomas, Dianne Johnson, Gloria Scarborough, and Julian Ford are hereby confirmed as Class Representatives for the Class.
11. William Claiborne and Lynn Cunningham are hereby confirmed as counsel, and Barrett S. Litt is hereby appointed as counsel, for the Class Representatives and the Class ("Class Counsel"). The contact information for Class Counsel follows below:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Claiborne Lynn Cunningham Barrett S. Litt
Law Offices of William Professor of Clinical Law Litt, Estuar, Harrison
Claiborne The George Washington Miller & Kitson, LLP
717 D Street, NW University Law School 1055 Wilshire Blvd
Suite 210 306 Westview Drive Ste # 1880
Washington, D.C. 20004 P.O. Box 1547 Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: 202-824-0700 Dubois, Wyoming 82513 Phone: 213-386-3114
Fax: 202-824-0745 Phone: (307) 455-3334 Fax: 213-380-4585
Fax
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Pursuant to F.R. Civ. P. Rule 23(g)(1)(C)(i), the Court considered the following points in appointing class counsel: (1) the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating potential claims in the action, (2) counsel's experience in handling class actions, other complex litigation, and claims of the type asserted in the action, based in part on affidavits submitted by counsel in support of their motions to certify (3) counsel's knowledge of the applicable law, (4) the resources counsel committed to representing the class; as well as other matters pertinent to counsel's ability to fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. The Court finds that Plaintiffs' counsel have done extensive research in this case, including taking numerous...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nilsen v. York County
...fund settlement of $6.25 million. The lodestar was reported as $535,000, resulting in a multiplier of 1.74. 2. Bynum v. District Columbia, 384 F.Supp.2d 342, 352 (D.D.C.2005) (D.D.C. preliminary approval of settlement Aug. 31, I draw no conclusions from this case because the proposed settle......
-
Simmons v. Dist. of D.C., Civil Action No. 07–493 (RCL).
...see Bynum v. Dist. of Columbia, 257 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C.2002), or approved a settlement of a class action, see Bynum v. Dist. of Columbia, 384 F.Supp.2d 342 (D.D.C.2005). A court does not make factual findings when ruling on a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, because it must accept as true all al......
-
Hurd v. Dist. of Columbia
...(e.g. , no claimed warrants, detainers, or unserved sentences). See Barnes , 793 F. Supp. 2d at 276 ; Bynum v. District of Columbia , 384 F. Supp. 2d 342, 348 (D.D.C. 2005). In contrast, Hurd asserts that the District intentionally incarcerated him for an unserved sentence for different off......
-
Trombley v. Nat'l City Bank
...actions often require a claims process to ensure money is fairly distributed for valid claims. See, e.g., Bynum v. Gov't of Dist. of Columbia, 384 F.Supp.2d 342, 363 (D.D.C.2005); Vista Healthplan, Inc. v. Bristol–Myers Squibb Co., 266 F.Supp.2d 44, 47 (D.D.C.2003); In re Lorazepam & Cloraz......