Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_05-cv-03643/USCOURTS-azd-3_05-cv-03643-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Dine' Communities for Equality in )

Education, Inc., et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, ) No. CV-05-3643-PCT-PGR

)

vs. )

) ORDER

Page Unified School District No. 8, )

Coconino County, et al., )

)

Defendants. ) )

The parties, pursuant to their written reports filed on August 31, 2006 (docs.

#54 and #55), have provided the Court with their agreement settling this class action.

The settlement agreement provides in part that the Court shall determine whether

the terms of the agreement are "fair, reasonable and adequate" and that the

agreement will be null and void if the Court determines that the agreement is not fair,

reasonable and adequate. The Court presumes that the parties included this

provision based on the Court's mistaken belief in its order entered on August 15,

2006 that the Court had to approve the parties' settlement. But as the defendants

correctly point out in their report, Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e)(1), as amended, no longer

requires court approval of a settlement of a class action if the settlement occurs, as

Case 3:05-cv-03643-PGR Document 56 Filed 10/23/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

 The settlement agreement also provides that the Court will retain jurisdiction solely

for the purpose of resolving any application for attorneys' fees filed by the plaintiffs. While the

Court does not understand why the parties cannot resolve this issue without judicial intervention 

as is normally done in a settlement agreement, the Court is willing to resolve the issue if

absolutely necessary to the effectuation of the settlement. The Court is not willing, however, to

automatically set an evidentiary hearing on any attorneys' fees request as set forth by the

defendants in their proposed form of order.

2

 The parties may, of course, file a stipulated dismissal of this action pursuant to

Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(ii) at any time prior to the deadline for filing their supplemental joint report.

here, prior to the time a class is certified. That being the case, the Court sees no

reason why it should expend scarce judicial resources determining whether the

terms of the settlement are fair, reasonable and adequate.1

 Since the named parties

have agreed upon the terms for resolving their differences and no class of plaintiffs

has been certified, the usual procedure would be for the parties to file a stipulated

dismissal of this action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(ii).

Furthermore, even if the Court were to undertake the burden of resolving the

reasonableness of the settlement, the parties have not provided the Court with any

sufficient basis on which to make the necessary determination. To do so, the parties

would have to expend additional resources briefing the reasonableness issue, which

would include submitting proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and

participating in a reasonableness hearing after notice to potential class members.

In order to resolve this procedural issue, the Court will require the parties to

file a supplemental joint report with the Court setting forth whether they can settle

this action through a stipulated dismissal or whether their settlement hinges on the

Court's approval of it.2

 If the latter, the parties shall set forth a detailed proposed

plan and schedule for accomplishing that approval. Therefore,

/ / /

Case 3:05-cv-03643-PGR Document 56 Filed 10/23/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall file a supplemental joint settlement

status report in accordance with the terms of this Order no later than November 30,

2006.

DATED this 20th day of October, 2006.

Case 3:05-cv-03643-PGR Document 56 Filed 10/23/06 Page 3 of 3