Van Horn v. Trickey
| Decision Date | 01 April 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-1244,87-1244 |
| Citation | 840 F.2d 604 |
| Parties | Roy F. VAN HORN, Randall Bartley, George Asimakis and All Other Similarly Situated Prisoners of the Ozark Correctional Center at Fordland, Missouri, v. Larry TRICKEY, Superintendent Ozark Correctional Center; James Purkett, Assistant Superintendent Ozark Correctional Center; Richard Crismas, Acting Assistant Superintendent Education, Ozark Correctional Center, Appellees. Michael PARTON and All Prisoners Now and in the Future of OCC, v. Larry H. TRICKEY, Superintendent, OCC, Official Capacity & Individually; Jim Purkett, Assistant Superintendent, OCC, Official Capacity & Individually; Bob Blair, Caseworker, OCC, Official Capacity & Individually; Howard Wilkins, CCA Officer, OCC, Official Capacity & Individually; and Sgt. Joseph La Prise, OCC, Official Capacity & Individually, Appellees, v. Paul E. LUSTER, Jr., Donald Dale Holt, Steven R. Manis, Louis Danneman, Lawrence Freulzer, Jr., Robert L. Simmons, Danny Keller, Timothy Lance, Todd Burfiend, Lloyd Reeves, and Chris Cook, Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Janet I. Blauvelt, Kansas City, Mo. (Appointed), for appellants.
Deborah Neff, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Mo., for appellees.
Before FAGG and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges, and HENLEY, Senior Circuit Judge.
Inmates at Ozark Correctional Center (OCC) appeal an order of the district court 1 approving a proposed consent decree submitted by attorneys for both sides in this consolidated class action certified under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2) challenging the conditions at the OCC. The inmates allege that they were afforded inadequate notice and opportunity to be heard and that the district court improperly failed to address their objections. We affirm.
At oral argument, counsel for the inmates conceded that the notice issue was not substantial. We agree, and therefore address it only briefly. Notice of settlement in a certified class action is governed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e), which provides that notice "shall be given to all members of the class in such manner as the court directs." Here, notice consisted of individual notice to class representatives and flyers posted at the OCC. The fact that approximately 180 of the more than 400 inmates objected to the proposal is testimony to the effectiveness of the notice. Although individual notice to each inmate would have been practicable, we find that the notice authorized by the district court was sufficient. Similarly, it was not reversible error for the district court to decline to hold a hearing to allow the inmates to voice their objections personally, either in court or at the OCC, as the inmates requested. Rule 23 does not mandate such a hearing; indeed, such a hearing would eviscerate the efficiency of a class action. Class members need be given only the opportunity to object. Walsh v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 726 F.2d 956, 965 (3d Cir.1983). Here, the inmates were allowed to file individual objections and were represented by counsel at all hearings and conferences.
Before discussing the inmates' argument that the district court failed to specifically address their objections, we note that although counsel owes a high standard of duty to the class, Mandujano v. Basic Vegetable Products, Inc., 541 F.2d 832, 834 (9th Cir.1976), a settlement may be approved over a significant percentage of objections from the class members. Pettway v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co., 576 F.2d 1157, 1215-16 (5th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1115, 99 S.Ct. 1020, 59 L.Ed.2d 74 (1979). The inmates do not allege that their representation was inadequate or that the counsel for the class was involved in fraud or collusion in any way. See generally Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32, 42-45, 61 S.Ct. 115, 118-20, 85 L.Ed. 22 (1940).
In approving a class settlement, the district court must consider whether it is "fair, reasonable, and adequate." Grunin v. Int'l House of Pancakes, 513 F.2d 114, 123 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 864, 96 S.Ct. 124, 46 L.Ed.2d 93 (1975); In re Flight Transp. Corp. Securities Litigation, 730 F.2d 1128, 1135 (8th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1207, 105 S.Ct. 1169, 84 L.Ed.2d 320 (1985).
Such a determination is committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge. Great weight is accorded his views because he is exposed to the litigants, and their strategies, positions and proofs.
He is aware of the expense and possible legal bars to success. Simply stated, he is on the firing line and can evaluate the action accordingly.
Grunin, 513 F.2d at 123 (quoting Ace Heating & Plumbing Co. v. Crane Co., 453 F.2d 30, 34 (3d Cir.1971)). The district court's determination will not be overturned unless the party challenging the settlement clearly shows that the district court abused its discretion. Wiener v. Roth, 791 F.2d 661, 662 (8th Cir.1986); In re Flight Transp., 730 F.2d at 1135; Elliott v. Sperry Rand Corp., 680 F.2d 1225, 1227 (8th Cir.1982).
The district court must consider a number of factors in determining whether a settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate: the merits of the plaintiff's case, weighed against the terms of the settlement; the defendant's financial condition; the complexity and expense of further litigation; and the amount of opposition to the settlement. Grunin, 513 F.2d at 124 (citations omitted); see also In re Flight Transp., 730 F.2d at 1135. Although in approving a settlement the district court need not undertake the type of detailed investigation that trying the case would involve, see Armstrong v. Bd. of School Directors of Milwaukee, 616 F.2d 305, 314-15 (7th Cir.1980), it must nevertheless provide the appellate court with a basis for determining that its decision rests on " 'well-reasoned conclusions' " and not " 'mere boilerplate.' " In re Flight Transp., 730 F.2d at 1136 (quoting Protective Comm. for Independent Stockholders of TMT Trailer Ferry, Inc. v. Anderson, 390 U.S. 414, 434, 88 S.Ct. 1157, 1168, 20 L.Ed.2d 1 (1968)).
Here, the district court summarily concluded, in a three-page opinion, that the experts for both sides had reviewed the inmates' objections and that "[t]he Court has carefully reviewed the written analysis made by the experts * * * and agrees with those experts that the proposed consent decree * * * does provide sufficient framework for the resolution of the complaints made by the class of plaintiffs." This analysis fails to address sufficiently the factors enunciated in Grunin. At argument, counsel for the inmates stated that had the district court made explicit findings in accordance with Grunin, the inmates would not have appealed. Accordingly, counsel requested a remand for a more reasoned opinion.
The district court's unexplained failure to follow the clearly expressed procedural law of this circuit gives us some concern. However, if the record contains facts supporting the district court's approval of the settlement, "a reviewing court would be properly reluctant to attack that action solely because the court failed adequately to set forth its reasons or the evidence on which they were based." In re...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stewart v. Rubin
...(sixteen percent); Grant v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 823 F.2d 20 (2d Cir.1987) (thirty six percent); see also Van Horn v. Trickey, 840 F.2d 604, 606 (8th Cir.1988) ("a settlement may be approved over a significant percentage of objections from class members" (citation omitted)). Although the ......
-
Christina A. ex rel. Jennifer A. v. Bloomberg
..."In approving a class settlement, the district court must consider whether it is `fair, reasonable, and adequate.'" Van Horn v. Trickey, 840 F.2d 604, 606 (8th Cir.1988) (quoting Grunin v. Int'l House of Pancakes, 513 F.2d 114, 123 (8th Cir.1975)). The district court's review of the settlem......
-
Cohn v. Nelson
...to the settlement. Id. at 932 (citing Grunin v. Int'l House of Pancakes, 513 F.2d 114, 124 (8th Cir.1975)). Accord Van Horn v. Trickey, 840 F.2d 604, 606 (8th Cir.1988). The most important consideration in deciding whether a settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate is "the strength of t......
-
White v. National Football League
...the district court's primary responsibility is to ensure that the settlement is "fair, reasonable, and adequate." Van Horn v. Trickey, 840 F.2d 604, 606 (8th Cir.1988) (citing Grunin, 513 F.2d at 123); In re Flight Transp. Corp. Sec. Litig., 730 F.2d 1128, 1135 (8th Cir.1984), cert. denied,......
-
Table of Cases
...251 (3d Cir. 1980), 517 Van Gemert v. Boeing Co., 590 F.2d 433 (2d Cir. 1978), aff ’ d, 444 U.S. 472 (1980), 1024 Van Horn v. Trickey, 840 F.2d 604 (8th Cir. 1988), 934 Vanity Fair Paper Mills v. FTC, 311 F.2d 480 (2d Cir. 1962), 586 Vantico Holdings, S.A. v. Apollo Mgmt., 247 F. Supp. 2d 4......
-
Private Antitrust Suits
...views are not dispositive, and a settlement may be approved even where many class members object to it. See, e.g., Van Horn v. Trickey, 840 F.2d 604, 606 (8th Cir. 1988); Bennett v. Behring Corp., 737 F.2d 982, 988 (11th Cir. 1984); Armstrong v. Board of Sch. Dir., 616 F.2d 305, 326 (9th Ci......