Opinion ID: 177521
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The District Court Appoints a Friend of the Court

Text: The District Court held a conference call with counsel for the Settling Parties and the Objectors on December 1, 2006, and expressed its intent to appoint an independent body to evaluate the fairness of the Modified Settlement. The Court made clear that it would not ask this independent body to evaluate the case in terms of whether the requirements of Rule 23 have been met or not. Counsel for the Objectors raised no objection to the Court's proposal at this time. The Court later chose retired Chief Judge Donald Ziegler of the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to serve as a friend of the court, and to provide a non-binding advisory opinion as to whether the Modified Settlement was fair and reasonable under Rule 23. In March 2007, the Settling Parties and the Objectors presented oral arguments to Judge Ziegler regarding the fairness of the Modified Settlement. However, counsel for some of the Objectors objected to the process, arguing to Judge Ziegler that his appointment was improper. [12] Judge Ziegler issued his advisory opinion in July 2007, and concluded that the Modified Settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate. He reasoned that the named plaintiffs faced significant obstacles to their RESPA and RICO claims if the case proceeded to trial, including the possibility that they would be unable to prove that defendants had charged them fees ( e.g., title fees and origination fees) for services that were not actually performed. However, Judge Ziegler did not consider whether the Modified Settlement was fair in the context of the Objectors' arguments that the class members' TILA/HOEPA claims were significantly more valuable, noting that the District Court ha[d] already concluded that there are no viable TILA/HOEPA claims and that he was not authorized to revisit that issue.