Opinion
80 Civ. 1196 (RWS), 05 Civ. 5286 (RWS).
April 27, 2006
OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Plaintiff MICHAEL HEYER commenced a class action on February 29, 1980, alleging that the policy and practice of the New York City Housing Authority ("the Housing Authority") of failing to provide mobility handicapped individuals with assistance in finding accessible housing denied class members benefits of the Section 8 Housing Assistance Program in violation of, inter alia, the United States Housing Act of 1937, the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Heyer v. NYCHA 80 Civ. 1196 (RWS).
2. On May 22, 1980, the court certified a class defined as follows: "(a) all members of the class are residents of the City of New York and are mobility handicapped; and (b) all members of the class are low income and eligible for NYCHA's Section 8 program; and (c) members of the class who fall into at least one or more of the following subclasses:
(i) all persons who have applied and have been found eligible for the Section 8 Program and presently hold a Certificate; or
(ii) all persons who had applied and had been found eligible for the Section 8 Program, and whose Certificates would not have expired but for defendants' discriminatory practices and policies; or
(iii) all persons who are eligible for the Section 8 Program but have not applied; or
(iv) all persons who will be eligible for the Section 8 Program in the future; or
(v) all persons who would have applied for participation in the Section 8 Program but have been discouraged from doing so because of defendants' discriminatory practices and policies."
3. A Stipulation of Settlement and Order in that case was So Ordered by Judge Robert Sweet on September 13, 1982 ("the 1982Heyer Stipulation").
4. Pursuant to that Stipulation, the Court retained jurisdiction "for the purpose of enabling any party to apply for such further orders as may be necessary or appropriate for the continuation, enforcement, or implementation of this Stipulation of Settlement and Order or any of the provisions thereof."
5. Members of the certified class, unaware of the existence of the Heyer case, filed a new case in the Eastern District of New York on June 17, 2002,Bennett v. NYCHA 02 Civ 3499) (CPS) (SMG), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief requiring the defendants to provide assistance to people with mobility impairments in their efforts to make use of their Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program vouchers, stating claims similar to those alleged in the Complaint in Heyer, as well as additional claims based on Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq. ("the ADA"); regulations promulgated thereunder, 28 C.F.R. Part 35; and the Fair Housing Act Amendments, 42 U.S.C. § 3601et seq.,
6. Parties to the new case, Bennett v. NYCHA, and the pre-existing case, Heyer v. NYCHA, subsequently entered negotiations to conserve judicial time and avoid the risk of inconsistent adjudications by consolidating the two cases.
7. Parties to both cases agreed to certification of a single class defined as: all individuals with mobility impairments who are or will be holders of Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program vouchers through the Housing Authority.
8. Parties to both cases, desiring to avoid the costs and uncertainty of further litigation, and to resolve all matters in both actions amicably, without trial or further adjudication of any issue of fact or law, agreed to dissolve and extinguish the 1982 Heyer Stipulation and to replace it with a new Stipulation in the consolidated cases. Parties therefore presented to this Court for approval a Proposed Stipulation and Order of Settlement.
9. Pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement, the Housing Authority shall, inter alia, (a) inform mobility-impaired applicants for the Section 8 program that they may have interviews by telephone rather than having to appear in person; that they may also apply for admission to public housing and have both applications processed at the same time; that they may request reasonable accommodations in making use of their vouchers; (b) provide individualized requested accommodations that the Housing Authority determines are reasonable; (c) regularly update its list of available apartments; (d) provide listings of available accessible apartments by mail if requested by class members; (e) make timely requests to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") for increases in the payment standard for individuals for whom such increases would be a reasonable accommodation.
10. In addition, the settlement requires the Housing Authority to provide to plaintiffs' counsel certain monitoring reports during the duration of the Court's jurisdiction, which is agreed to be three years after the date the Stipulation is "so ordered" by this Court, and plaintiffs may seek relief from this Court for alleged systemic violations of the Stipulation and Order of Settlement, after following procedures laid out in the Stipulation for trying to resolve such allegations.
11. Within 60 days of the execution of the Stipulation, the Housing Authority will train all relevant Section 8 personnel regarding the obligations created by the Stipulation.
12. On October 11, 2005, this Court preliminarily approved the Settlement and approved the form and manner of notice to members of the class.
13. The approved Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement ("class notice") was sent by the New York City Housing Authority to approximately 36,000 class members in December 2005 and January 2006, explaining the terms of the settlement and informing class members of their right to object to the terms of the settlement if they believed them to be unfair.
14. Plaintiffs' counsel received approximately 700 telephone calls in response to the Class Notice. All of these callers were seeking information and clarification and none expressed any objection to the terms of the settlement.
15. On March 8, 2006, this Court held a Fairness Hearing to hear from class members who sought to appear before the Court. Approximately fifty class members appeared in Court; many were heard in open court; others spoke to plaintiffs' counsel in the hallway of the courthouse.
16. None of the class members who appeared in court expressed any objection to the terms of the settlement.
17. No agreement has been made between the parties in connection with the proposed settlement except the terms of the Stipulation and Order of Settlement itself.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(e) require that a class action may only be settled with the approval of the court. In assessing the adequacy of a class action settlement, the court must examine the negotiation process leading up to the settlement. D'Amato v. Deutsche Bank 236 F. 3d 78, 85 (2d Cir. 2001). In addition, the court must assess the factors set forth in City of Detroit v. Grinnel Corp 495 F.2d 448, 463 (2d Cir. 1974, abrogated on other grounds by Goldberger v. Integrated Resources, Inc., 209 F.3d 43 (2d Cir. 2000). Those relevant to this case, which did not seek damages for class members, but only declaratory and injunctive relief, are "(1) the complexity, expense and likely duration of the litigation; (2) the reaction of the class to the settlement; (3) the stage of the proceedings and the amount of discovery completed; (4) the risks of establishing liability;. . . . (6) the risks of maintaining the class action through trial; (7) the ability of the defendants to withstand a greater judgment. . . ."
The parties in these consolidated cases have engaged in extensive settlement negotiations. Plaintiffs are represented by counsel with extensive experience in the litigation of class actions, including cases against this same defendant. After an initial round of discovery, the parties began settlement discussions, and continued these discussions for several years. The parties met with Magistrate Judge Steven Gold several times in the course of the negotiations, and reported that Judge Gold had materially advanced their discussions. The court is satisfied that the parties have not colluded or conspired to achieve this agreement, and that the process of negotiation has been fair and thorough.
Furthermore, the settlement meets the relevant criteria set forth in Grinnell. In light of the complexity, expense and likely duration of the litigation, and the current situation of the Housing Authority's limited funding for the entire Section 8 program, settlement was the wisest course for all parties. The reaction of the class to the settlement, as described above in the findings of fact, clearly supports approval: class members received individual notice, were granted the opportunity to speak to plaintiffs' counsel and to the Court, and expressed no objection to the terms of the settlement. Although it is true that only a limited amount of discovery was completed before the commencement of settlement negotiations, the familiarity of counsel for all parties with the facts of the case, justified the effort to reach settlement. Given the risks of establishing liability and of maintaining the class action through trial, on behalf of the class of indigent physically disabled individuals, as well as the limited ability of the defendants to withstand a greater judgment, the Court finds that the remaining Grinnel factors are also satisfied.
It appears to the Court, based on the Court's reading of the Settlement and hearing from members of the class, that pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23 (e), the Settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the class.
The Stipulation and Order of Settlement between the parties, attached hereto, and made a part hereof, is therefore approved.