Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Does Rule 23(e) Require that Settlement Class Members Receive Notice of Modification to Cy Pres Remedy?

May 26, 2015 by Carlton Fields

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia recently held that a modification to a settlement agreement was not subject to the procedural protections of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) because it would not “materially hinder” the legal rights of class members. The settlement agreement at issue, entered into between Native American ranchers and farmers and the United States Department of Agriculture, required that the money remaining after the distribution of funds to class members would benefit organizations providing assistance to Native Americans pursuant to a cy pres remedy. After the completion of the distribution to class members, class counsel moved to modify the cy pres remedy in order to more efficiently handle disbursement of the $380 million in settlement funds remaining, as some of the conditions for distribution had become impractical. Various others involved in the settlement sought different relief, including distribution of the remaining funds to class members.

In advance of a hearing on class counsels’ motion, the court addressed the application of Rule 23(e), which governs the settlement of class actions, to the modification of a settlement. Rule 23(e) requires a court to provide notice to class members who would be bound by a proposed settlement, compromise, or voluntary dismissal and to conduct a fairness hearing before approving the proposal. The court held, however, that these requirements did not apply to the modification to a settlement unless it would adversely affect class members’ rights. Thus, although a modification that extinguished opt-out rights or provided lesser recovery to class members would be subject to Rule 23(e), amendments that provided additional benefits or made only minor modifications might not.

Here, because the class members’ legal claims had already been extinguished by the settlement agreement and class members do not have a property interest in unclaimed funds, a modification of the cy pres remedy would not alter class members’ rights. Thus, Rule 23(e) did not apply to the modification. The court found, however, that it otherwise had the authority to require notice to the class pursuant to the settlement agreement, which provided for such notice by court order, and under Rule 23(d)(1)(B), which permits a court to give notice to class members at any point in the action. The court also noted that, although it could not hold a Rule 23(e) fairness hearing, it had the authority to receive comments from class members. Thus, the court determined that it would allow individuals to provide written comments or speak at the hearing on the motion in order to fairly conduct the proceeding and inform the court’s ultimate decision.

Keepseagle v. Vilsack, No. 99-3119 (D.D.C. May 4, 2015).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

Class Action Plaintiffs’ Failure to Appear at Deposition Deemed Not Prejudicial Enough for Dismissal

Next Article »

Single Plant Employment Discrimination Class Survives Dukes Challenge
Avatar

About Carlton Fields

Get Weekly Updates!

2020 Class Action Survey – Now Available!

DOWNLOAD NOW
Carlton Fields Logo A blog focused on the latest class action developments and trends by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Search

Topics

Industries/Practices
  • Construction
  • Consumer Finance & Banking
  • Food & Beverage
  • Health Care
  • Insurance
  • Labor, Employment & ERISA
  • Manufacturing & Products
  • Pharmaceutical
  • Privacy & Technology
  • Securities
  • Telecommunications

Substantive/Procedural
  • Arbitration
  • CAFA
  • Certification
    • Adequacy
    • Ascertainability
    • Commonality
    • Numerosity
    • Predominance
    • Superiority
    • Typicality
  • Decertification
  • Settlements
  • Standing
  • Striking of Class Allegations

Courts/Jurisdiction
  • Federal District Courts
  • Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal
  • United States Supreme Court
  • State Courts

Monthly Archives

Recent Articles

  • MDL Court Denies Class Certification of Proposed “NAS Babies” Class
  • What’s Good for Trial Is Good for Class Certification: Fifth Circuit Rules That Daubert Applies at Class Certification Stage
  • One Game, One Stadium: Eleventh Circuit Spikes Collateral Challenge to Tampa Bay Buccaneers Proposed Class Action Settlement

Get Weekly Updates!

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • Class Action Survey

Related Industries/Practices

  • National Class Actions
  • National Trial Practice
  • Appellate & Trial Support
  • Our Class Action Experience

Classified: The Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact

Classified Logo
© 2014–2021 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.