Opinion ID: 1346280
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Settlement Negotiations and the So-Ordered Settlement Agreement

Text: In its April 30 order, the District Court also directed the parties to appear at a scheduling/settlement conference with principals (or authority) before the Court ten days later. At the conference, Judge Berman actively urged settlement, and made it clear that he felt the law was on Plaintiffs' side. When the County offered to provide Halal meat to Muslim inmates once a week and not provide any money in damages (an offer Plaintiffs' counsel Cohen analogized to allowing Rosa Parks to sit at the front of the bus on Mondays only), Judge Berman opined that, from a settlement perspective, it didn't sound like much of a settlement to propose once a week for 3 inmates to have kosher meals when ... Jewish inmates receive kosher meals 4 or 5 times a week. The County commented that it's obvious that [Plaintiffs] are not going to accept any form of settlement unless we give them Halal meat the same number of times that the Jewish inmates get kosher meat, to which Judge Berman responded, Remind me again why that shouldn't be the case? Judge Berman extensively probed the County's arguments that providing Halal meat as often as it provided Kosher meat would be either a cost problem or a security threat, warning that the County's estimated expense of $30,000 a year didn't sound as if it supported a good faith argument and making it clear that the County's security argument seemed no more plausible. At the close of the conference, Judge Berman set an unusually short time frame for discovery and a trial date just five months away. He explained: I am actually going to give you a little less time because the issues are very simple and I think the basic issues are known.... [T]his couldn't be more obvious and couldn't be more simple as to what is going on here and the question is whether these Muslim inmates are entitled to be treated like the Jewish inmates. It's really that simple. I am not saying I know the answer to that question and even if I come up with an answer somebody may think it's wrong. But that is the whole story here. So, frankly, I think we have been wasting a lot of time already because I would [have] thought this was such an obvious case to be resolved.... Judge Berman conducted another settlement conference on July 30, 2007, at which the Defendants proposed that instead of offering Halal meat once a week, they would serve Halal meat with the same frequency as Kosher meat to the Jewish inmates. Judge Berman commented that that's where the law would bring you, but that's another story, and ordered Cohen to check with the ten Plaintiffs who were no longer incarcerated to see if they would accept this relief or wanted to pursue money damages. [4] After the County expressed opposition to entering a consent decree, Judge Berman acknowledged that even the phrase consent decree is pejorative in some contexts, and discussed other ways to memorialize the agreement and guarantee to the Plaintiffs that the County would comply with the settlement. On March 12, 2008, the parties entered a Settlement, Release, and Stipulation of Discontinuance, which recited the terms of the agreement. Pursuant to the agreement, the County agreed to provide all present and future Muslim inmates of the Westchester County Jail who request a Halal diet with Halal meat with the same frequency as Kosher meat is served to Jewish inmates requesting the Kosher diet. The County made this change in contemplation of settling the lawsuit and in consideration of Plaintiffs' discontinuing their actions. The settlement did not constitute an admission of liability. While the agreement expressly indicated that it was not a consent decree, the dismissal of the lawsuits only took effect [u]pon the Court's approval and entry of this Stipulation and Order. As for attorneys' fees, the settlement agreement provided that Plaintiffs expressly reserved the right to file for attorneys' fees and that the County had the right to oppose such a motion. The District Court reviewed and revised the settlement agreement with the parties present. Judge Berman made three changes to the document that the parties had presented to the Court: First, he amended the caption of the document to reflect that it was an Order of Settlement. Second, where the settlement agreement provided that Plaintiffs retained the right to bring an action if the County failed to comply with the settlement and that Plaintiffs are permitted to request referral of those claims to Judge Richard Berman, he added that [t]his Court retains discretion to accept any such case(s) as [may be] related. Third, he instructed the clerk to close the case, and so-ordered the settlement.