## In the United States Court of Federal Claims

No. 09-559 L (Filed November 14, 2013)

BENNY J. AND JUDY A. ) JANSSEN, Husband and Wife, ) DREYER PROPERTIES, LLC, ) et al., on their own behalf and on ) behalf of a class of others similarly ) situated, ) Plaintiffs, ) v. ) ) THE UNITED STATES, ) Defendant. )

ORDER

On November 12, 2013, the parties app eared before the court for a hearing on the fairness of the proposed class settlement in this action. Pursuant to Court of Federal Claims Rule 23(e), cl ass actions may be “settled, voluntarily dismissed, or compromised only with the court’s appr oval.” The court may only grant such approval upon a finding that the settlement is “fair, r easonable, and adequate.” Rule 23(e)(2).

To determine whether a particular settle ment meets the standard set forth in Rule 23, courts examine a number of non-exclusive factors, such as:

1. The relative strengths of plai ntiffs’ case compared to the proposed settlement;

2. The recommendation of class couns el, taking into account the adequacy of class counsels’ representation;

3. The reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement, taking into account the adequacy of the notice to the class members of the settlement

terms;

4. The fairness of the settlement to the entire class;5. The fairness of the provision for attorneys’ fees; and

6. The ability of the defendant to w ithstand greater judgment, taking into

account whether the defendant is a governmental actor or private entity.

Raulerson v. United States , 108 Fed. Cl. 675, 677 (2013). The weight assigned to

each factor is within the discretion of the court, though settlement is generally

favored. See id.

The class in this case initially c onsisted of 102 members, who owned 182 parcels of land. After an analysis of which property owners are entitled to recover,

the class now consists of 76 members who own 126 parcels of land. In the proposed settlement, the government ha s agreed to make a cash payment of $1,997,969.19 to resolve all class members’ claims. That amount consists of the following: (1) $1,329,058, the aggregat e fair market value of the property allegedly taken; (2 ) $325,957.19 in prejudgment intere st; (3) $320,634 in statutory fees; and (4) $22,320 in costs. After at torneys’ fees and costs are subtracted, 1 a total of $1,429,494.18 will be dist ributed to the class members. See Doc. 64 (explaining proper method of calculating di stribution). In exchange for this payment, the class members will dismiss th eir claims against the government, with prejudice.

Here, the factors strongly militate in favor of approving the settlement. First, the class members will be compensa ted for the fair market value of their property, as determined by an a ppraiser approved by both parties. See Doc. 52 at 4; Doc. 55 at 6-10. Second, class counsel has worked diligently in identifying and researching class members’ claims , and has recommended settlement. See Doc. 55 at 4-5 (describing extensive legal research and review of property records). Third, after receiving a notice that was previously approved by the court, see Doc. 53 at 2, no class members have contested the settlement arrangement. In fact, plaintiffs’ counsel represented that, as of the time of the fairness hearing, all 76 class members have affirmatively expressed a pproval. Fourth, as noted above, the appraiser considered the characteristics of each parcel at issue in calculating the

fair market value. Theref ore, each class member w ill receive a settlement amount that is calculated based on the type of property he or she owns. See Doc. 55 at 6- 10 (describing the method used by the appraiser to value the property at issue). Fifth, the court has previ ously ruled on the proper met hod of calculating attorneys’

1 The costs are not included as part of the comm on fund, and therefore will not be distributed to

the class members. See Doc. 55 at 16.fees, and held that such fees are fair. See Doc. 64. Sixth, a nd finally, although it may be argued that the United States could withstand a greater judgment, because

the settlement is for the fair market valu e of the property, there is no creditable argument that it should do so in this case.

For the foregoing reasons, the settlement in this case is APPROVED , and the parties are directed to distribute the appropriate funds to each class member. Once the distribution is complete, plaintiffs’ counsel is directed to file a notice of dismissal. At such time, the court w ill enter an order dismissing the case with prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

s/ James F. Merow

James F. Merow Senior Judge