Foe v. Cuomo

• Decision Date: 17 November 1988
• Docket Number: No. 75 Civ. 1029 (JRB).,75 Civ. 1029 (JRB).
• Citation: 700 F. Supp. 107
• Parties: Frank FOE, etc., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Mario CUOMO, etc., et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

700 F. Supp. 107

Frank FOE, etc., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Mario CUOMO, etc., et al., Defendants.

No. 75 Civ. 1029 (JRB).

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

November 17, 1988.

Michael S. Lottman, E. Hartford, Conn., Scheinberg, Schneps, DePetris & DePetris, Riverhead, N.Y. (Murray B. Schneps, of counsel), for plaintiffs.

Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen. of the State of N.Y., New York City (Arnold D. Fleischer, Caren Brutten, Asst. Attys. Gen., of counsel), Nancy H. Halleck, New York State Office of Mental Health, Albany, N.Y., for defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT

BARTELS, District Judge.

I. BACKGROUND

This case has a long and tortured history. It was commenced on June 27, 1975, on behalf of all patients involuntarily committed to the care and custody of New York State mental hospitals, as a broadscale challenge to the constitutionality of the policies and operation of the public mental health system in New York State. By amended complaint filed August 15, 1975, plaintiffs claimed that defendants had deprived involuntary patients of their constitutional rights to adequate care and treatment while under the care and custody of the State of New York.

On January 16, 1976, the Honorable Edward R. Neaher of this District certified the lawsuit as a class action. See Woe v. Mathews, 408 F.Supp. 419 (E.D.N.Y.1976), remanded in part and dismissed in part sub nom., Woe v. Weinberger, 556 F.2d 563 (2d Cir.1977), aff'd, 562 F.2d 40 (2d Cir.1977), cert. denied sub nom., Woe v. Califano, 434 U.S. 1048, 98 S.Ct. 895, 54 L.Ed.2d 799 (1978). But see Woe v. Cuomo, 559 F.Supp. 1158 (E.D.N.Y.) mandamus denied sub nom., In re Woe, 723 F.2d 895 (2d Cir.1983) and 723 F.2d 895 (2d Cir.1983), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, Woe v. Cuomo, 729 F.2d 96 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 936, 105 S.Ct. 339, 83 L.Ed.2d 274 (1984). The class certified consisted of all persons between the ages of 21 and 65 who were then or would come to be involuntarily civilly committed to New York State mental institutions. 408 F.Supp. at 429. The persons affected by the settlement agreement sub judice are in effect a subclass consisting of involuntarily civilly committed patients between the ages of 21 and 65 who are being treated at the Bronx Psychiatric Center, Bronx, New York ("BPC"). The defendants in the present case are state officials who have varying degrees of responsibility for either the operation of BPC, the promulgation and implementation of policies pertaining to the plaintiff class, or the provision of services to the plaintiff class. Plaintiffs' claims against the state officials are derived from the first claim of the Amended Complaint dated August 15, 1975, at 9-14, which essentially alleges denial of constitutionally adequate care and treatment in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs claim that, inter alia, a shortage of qualified staff, overcrowding of hospital living units, lack of adequate health care, and failure to provide active treatment amount to a denial of the right of involuntarily civilly committed patients to constitutionally adequate care and services. Defendants deny these allegations.

For nine years, from 1975 to 1984, extensive motion practice ensued, see Woe v. Cuomo, 729 F.2d 96, 99-101, culminating in the dismissal of the action in toto, including the claims going to institutions that had lost accreditation by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals ("JCAH"). Id. at 101. On February 22, 1984, the Court of Appeals remanded to this Court plaintiffs' claims concerning the adequacy of care and treatment at New York State mental hospitals that lose accreditation either by JCAH or by the federal Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS"). See Woe v. Cuomo, 729 F.2d 96, 108 (2d Cir.1984).

On April 9, 1985, plaintiffs moved for, inter alia, a preliminary injunction against further admissions to BPC, which at that time had lost JCAH and HHS accreditation.¹ After seven days of hearings, Judge Neaher found that the quality of care at BPC had fallen below constitutionally adequate standards, largely as a result of "chronic and persistant overcrowding...." Woe by Woe v. Cuomo, 638 F.Supp. 1506, 1512 (E.D.N.Y.), aff'd in part, remanded in part, 801 F.2d 627 (2d Cir.1986). See also 801 F.2d at 628. On July 1, 1986, Judge Neaher enjoined defendants from admitting any additional patients to BPC. 638 F.Supp. 1506.

On September 29, 1986, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's factual findings but stayed enforcement of the injunction prohibiting further admissions. 801 F.2d 627. The case was remanded to this Court to afford defendants the opportunity to present evidence concerning the constitutionality of care at BPC, to consider the implications of and alternatives to a freeze on admissions to BPC, and for a trial on the merits. Id. at 630-31.

Hearings on remand commenced November 19, 1986. On December 2, 1986, Judge Neaher recused himself. The case was first reassigned to the Honorable Henry Bramwell, and upon Judge Bramwell's retirement was reassigned to the undersigned on January 14, 1986.

In May, 1987, Doctor Morton Birnbaum and Mr. Burton Zukerman having withdrawn as plaintiffs' attorney, and Mr. Michael Lottman having been substituted in their place, the parties began to explore the possibility of settlement. A proposed settlement agreement (the "Proposed Agreement") was filed with the Court on August 26, 1988.

On October 25 and 27, 1988, hearings were held pursuant to Rule 23(e), Fed.R. Civ.P., for the purpose of determining whether the Proposed Agreement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and should be approved by the Court. The October 25 hearing was held at BPC and was devoted primarily to the presentation of comments from members of the plaintiff class, attorneys for both sides, and BPC staff members. No objections were filed at that hearing. The October 27 hearing was held at the federal courthouse and was devoted to the presentation of comments by interested parties who are not members of the plaintiff class. Objections were filed at that hearing by Dr. Birnbaum and Mr. Zuckerman.

II. DISCUSSION

Rule 23(e), Fed.R.Civ.P., requires Court approval before class actions may be settled.² The role of the Court, however, is strictly limited in that the settlement hearings may not be turned "into a trial or a rehersal of the trial," Newman v. Stein, 464 F.2d 689, 692 (2d Cir.) (internal quotations omitted), cert. denied sub nom., Benson v. Newman, 409 U.S. 1039, 93 S.Ct. 521, 34 L.Ed.2d 488 (1972); the Court may not substitute its judgment of what is fair for that of the parties, Evans v. Jeff D., 475 U.S. 717, 727, 106 S.Ct. 1531, 1537, 89 L.Ed.2d 747 (1986); and the Court may not "reopen and enter into negotiations with the litigants in the hope of improving the terms of the settlement ...," Levin v. Mississippi River Corp., 59 F.R.D. 353, 361 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 486 F.2d 1398 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1112, 94 S.Ct. 843, 38 L.Ed.2d 739 (1973). See also In re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation, 597 F.Supp. 740, 760 (E.D.N.Y.1984), aff'd, 818 F.2d 145 (2d Cir.1987). See generally 7B Wright, Miller, & Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1797 at 356-58 (1986). The Court's role consists of deciding whether the Proposed Agreement is "fair, reasonable and adequate," Weinberger v. Kedrick, 698 F.2d 61, 73 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied sub nom., Coyne v. Weinberger, 464 U.S. 818, 104 S.Ct. 77, 78 L.Ed.2d 89 (1983), and, given the plaintiff class in this case, the Court is especially mindful of its additional role as guardian to class members who may lack the intellectual resources to press objections to the Proposed Agreement. See Id. at 69 n. 10; National Super Spuds v. New York Mercantile Exchange, 660 F.2d 9, 20 (2d Cir.1981) (in reviewing settlement, court has responsibility to protect class members who cannot protect themselves).³

Keeping in mind that the law favors settlement, Weinberger, 693 F.2d at 73, especially in class actions, In re Warner Communications Securities Litigation, 618 F.Supp. 735, 740 (S.D.N.Y.1985), aff'd, 798 F.2d 35 (2d Cir.1986), the Court must decide whether a proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, by comparing the terms of the compromise with the likely rewards of litigation, Protective Committee for Independent Stockholders of TMT Trailer Ferry, Inc. v. Anderson, 390 U.S. 414, 424-25, 88 S.Ct. 1157, 1163-64, 20 L.Ed.2d 1 (1968); Weinberger, 698 F.2d at 73; City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d 448, 455 (2d Cir.1974); In re Agent Orange, 597 F.Supp. at 762. To make this comparison, the Second Circuit has posited several criteria, those pertinant to cases involving injunctive relief being A) the complexity, expense, and likely duration of the litigation; B) the reaction of the class to the settlement; C) the stage of the proceeding and the amount of discovery completed; D) the risks of establishing liability; E) the ability of plaintiffs to obtain, and of defendants to withstand, a greater judgment; F) the range of reasonableness of the settlement in light of the best possible recovery; and G) the negotiating process that gave rise to the settlement. See Grinnell, 495 F.2d at 463.

Taking all these criteria into account, and viewing the Proposed Agreement in light of the "totality of the circumstances," In re Agent Orange, 597 F.Supp. at 761 (quoting Grunin v. International House of Pancakes, 513 F.2d 114, 124 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 864, 96 S.Ct. 124, 46 L.Ed.2d 93 (1975)), the Court finds the Proposed Agreement to be fair, reasonable, and adequate.

A. The complexity, expense, and likely duration of the litigation

This case, involving care and services at a large urban psychiatric hospital serving some 650 patients at any given time, is precisely the kind of case where settlement would serve the plaintiff class and the interests of...