SILVER BUCKLE MINES, INC. v. USA

Filing 148

UNREPORTED ORDER granting 146 Motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement and approval of notices of class action settlement. (Notices mailed by 2/26/2024. Documents posted to website by Settlement Administrator by 2/26/2024. Objections from class members due by 21 days from above mailing and posting. Responses from the parties to any objections due by 10 days after receipt of the objection. Fairness Hearing set for 4/11/2024 10:00 AM Eastern in Courtroom 4 before Judge Edward H. Meyers. Within 180 days from mailing of the last settlement check, Settlement Administrator shall provide final accounting to all parties. Within 15 days of the date the accounting is sent, the parties shall confer on whether they are satisfied with the Administrator, and either work to resolve any dispute in good faith or stipulate case dismissal). Signed by Judge Edward H. Meyers. (cah) Service on parties made.

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 13-476
Filed: February 16, 2024
________________________________________
)
SILVER BUCKLE MINES, INC.,
)
For Itself and as Representative of a
)
Class of Similarly Situated Parties,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
THE UNITED STATES,
)
)
Defendant.
)
________________________________________ )
ORDER
On February 9, 2024, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval
of the class action settlement, proposed settlement notice plan, and settlement notices, ECF No.
146. The Court finds as follows:
On July 16, 2013, Plaintiff Silver Buckle Mines (“SBM”) filed this case asserting that
Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) lacked the legal authority to collect maintenance fees
related to unpatented lode mining claims for the 2013 assessment year. ECF No. 1. SBM
alleges that maintenance fee payments made in 2012 for the 2013 assessment year, in relation to
lode mining claims, mill sites, and tunnel sites located before August 10, 1993, were paid in
contradiction to Section 430 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012. ECF No. 1.
On May 23, 2017, the Court granted SBM’s motion for summary judgment, denied
BLM’s cross motion for summary judgment, and granted SBM’s motion to certify the class.
ECF No. 49. The Court appointed Frank R. Siderius of Siderius Lonergan and Martin LLP as
class counsel.
On July 10, 2018, the Court modified the class definition of its May 23, 2017, order.
ECF No. 73. On August 7, 2018, the Court approved the parties’ preliminary joint proposed
class notification plan and appointed the KCC Class Action Services LLC (“KCC”) as the Class
Administrator (the “Administrator”). ECF No. 78.
After the class certification and issuance of the class notice, the opt-in period closed on
January 18, 2019. The Administrator received 373 opt-in forms, including 103 forms submitted
by internet. There are 16,818 unpatented mining claims and sites, submitted by 196 claimants,
that fall within the class definition.

Attempting to resolve all claims following the opt-in period, the Parties submitted a joint
status report on November 9, 2023, indicating they had reached an agreement that resolves this
case fully and were in the process of executing a settlement agreement. ECF No. 133. Plaintiffs
then filed a motion to substitute attorney Michael Siderius in place of Frank Siderius as class
counsel on November 16, 2023, ECF No. 134, which the Court granted on December 7, 2023,
ECF No. 137. The parties executed the settlement agreement on January 11, 2024.
Plaintiff requests the Court (1) preliminarily approve the Settlement Agreement; (2)
approve the Notices of Class Action Settlement; (3) appoint KCC, LLC as Settlement
Administrator; (4) direct the Settlement Administrator to mail and/or email the Notices of Class
Action Settlement to class members; (5) establish certain deadlines; and (6) schedule a fairness
hearing. The Government does not oppose.
I.

The Settlement Agreement

The Settlement Agreement provides that for each eligible mining claim or site the
Government will pay $140.00 for a total payment of $2,354,520.00 inclusive of all damages,
attorney’s fees, out of pocket expenses to the end of the case, and all administrative fees and
costs to the end of the case (“the Settlement Amount”) in full satisfaction of all claims. The
Settlement Agreement further provides for the payment of $595,904.00, which consists of
$470,904.00 for fees and costs to Class Counsel (20%) and $125,000.00 to the Class
Administrator. This amount will be paid from the Settlement Amount and shall be charged
proportionally to the settlement class members.
“Pursuant to RCFC 23(e), ‘[t]he claims, issues or defenses of a certified class may be
settled . . . only with the court’s approval,’ requiring a ‘finding that it is fair, reasonable, and
adequate.” RCFC 23(e), (e)(2); see also Berkley v. United States, 59 Fed.Cl. 675, 677 (2004). In
reviewing whether a proposed class action settlement warrants approval, the Court conducts a
“two-step process in which [it] first determines whether a proposed class action settlement
deserves preliminary approval and then, after notice is given to class members, whether final
approval is warranted.” Barnes v. United States, 89 Fed. Cl. 668, 670 (2009).
The court in Barnes considered four factors for determining whether a settlement is
within the range of approval: (i) whether the settlement agreement appears to be the product of
serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations; (ii) whether it improperly grants preferential
treatment to class representatives or other members of the class; (iii) whether counsel are
experienced and have been adequately informed of the facts via discovery; and (iv) whether the
agreement otherwise has obvious deficiencies. Id. The Court addresses these factors in turn.
First, class members are obtaining complete relief and the resolution of all claims without
further delay due to litigation and appeals. There is nothing to indicate that the proposed
Settlement Agreement is anything but the product of arms-length negotiations. Therefore, the
first Barnes factor weighs in favor of preliminary approval of the proposed Settlement
Agreement.
Second, no class member or class representative is given preferential treatment. All
members will share proportionally in their claim to the Settlement Amount, and the Settlement

2

Agreement does not contain any class representative award. The Settlement Amount is
calculated based upon the number of claims and sites for each settlement member. The only
deduction made is for costs to administer the Settlement and for attorney’s fees and costs. All
Settlement Fees and Costs will be borne proportionally by each member of the class. Therefore,
the second Barnes factor weighs in favor of preliminary approval.
Third, Class Counsel is experienced and has earnestly advocated on behalf of the class
members. Siderius, Lonergan & Martin, LLP has experience litigating and defending numerous
class complaints before State and Federal Courts. The Court appointed Frank Siderius, and later
Michael Siderius as Class Counsel. The interests of the entire Class appear to have been
diligently represented throughout this litigation. Therefore, the third Barnes factor weighs in
favor of preliminary approval.
Fourth, the Settlement has no apparent deficiencies and provides payment for all relief
sought by the Class from the outset of this case, less the costs and fees incurred. The parties
have settled all claims based upon their evaluations of the likelihood of success and in favor of
an immediate resolution, instead of continuing with litigation. Therefore, the fourth Barnes
factor weighs in favor of preliminary approval.
Given that all four Barnes factors weigh in favor of preliminary approval, the Court
concludes that the Settlement Agreement merits preliminary approval.
II.

Notice to Class Members

While there are not rigid rules for providing class notice, the chosen notice must fairly
appraise the class members of the proposed settlement’s terms and the options open to them in
connection with the proceeding. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., 396 F.3d 96, 113-14
(2d Cir. 2005). To be adequate, the notice must be understandable to the average class member.
Id.
The Parties propose providing notice to the settlement class member by posting a notice
on the Case website maintained at http://www.miningfeerefundclassaction.com (“the case
website”), sending post card notices to all claimants, and sending the settlement notice via email
to all those claimants who have provided email addresses. Concurrent with this notice to class
members, holders of ineligible claims will be notified of the ineligibility of their claims by
separate letter.
The Court finds Plaintiff’s proposed notices are reasonable and adequate to alert class
members to their rights and obligations under the terms of the agreement, including requiring
claimants to provide a tax identification number (e.g., a social security number or employer
identification number) as condition to receiving disbursement of a claimant’s settlement
payment.
The Court further finds that notice by postcard mailing to the last known address of
claimants, email notice to those claimants who have provided an email address, and notice
contemporaneously posted to the website dedicated to the settlement are reasonable and adequate
methods of notice.

3

Therefore, Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of
the Class Action Settlement and Approves the Notices of Class Action Settlement, ECF No. 146.
The Court further ORDERS, as follows:
a.) The Court APPOINTS KCC, LLC as the Settlement Administrator, and authorizes it
to act in accordance with the Settlement Agreement and all Court orders relating to
the Settlement Agreement.
b.) The Settlement Administrator shall, within ten (10) days of the entry of this order,
mail to each Plaintiff the appropriate Notice of Class Action Settlement Postcard
dedicated to the Settlement. The Court DIRECTS the Settlement Administrator to
make reasonable efforts to verify the last known address of the class members.
c.) The Settlement Administrator shall, within ten (10) days of the entry of this order,
post to the website the following documents: (1) the Notices of Class Action
Settlement; (2) the Complaint; (3) the Settlement Agreement; (4) this Order; and (5)
Answers to frequently asked questions.
d.) Class members shall provide any written objection to the proposed Settlement
Agreement or to Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Litigation expenses to
Plaintiff’s Counsel, Michael Siderius of Siderius Lonergan and Martin, LLP, 500
Union Street, Suite 847, Seattle, WA 98101, postmarked no later than twenty-one
(21) days from mailing and posting of the class action notice described in list items
(b.) and (c.), above. Plaintiff’s counsel shall promptly file with the Court any
objections received and provide a copy to the Government. The parties or
Administrator are directed to update the proposed notices with the deadline in this
paragraph.
e.) Plaintiff’s counsel and the Government shall file responses to any objections within
ten (10) days after receipt of the objection.
f.) The Fairness Hearing shall be held April 11, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Daylight
Time. The Fairness Hearing shall be held at the National Courts Building, 717
Madison Place NW, Washington, D.C. 20439. Class members may attend either in
person or participate telephonically using the dial-in instructions provided to them.
The purpose of the Fairness Hearing is to determine whether the Court should finally
approve the Settlement Agreement as fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best
interest of the Class. The parties or Administrator are directed to update the proposed
notices with the hearing date and time specified in this paragraph.
g.) Within one hundred eighty (180) days from the date the Settlement Administrator
mails the last settlement checks, the Settlement Administrator shall provide a final
accounting to the parties of all payments made from the Settlement Trust and all
refunds to the United States.
h.) Within fifteen (15) days of the date the accounting is sent, the parties shall confer to
see if they are satisfied with the Administrator. If not satisfied, the parties shall work
4

in good faith to resolve any dispute. If satisfied, the parties shall stipulate to
dismissal of this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Edward H. Meyers
Edward H. Meyers
Judge

5