Duvall, et al v. Hogan, et al

Filing 462

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 458 MOTION for Approval of Amendment to Partial Settlement Agreement filed by Jerome Duvall Objections to R&R due by 5/7/2012 Responses due by 5/7/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm on 4/18/12. (apls, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

JEROME DUVALL, et al.
Plaintiffs,
v.
MARTIN O’MALLEY, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL NO.: ELH-94-2541

…o0o…
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This Report and Recommendation addresses the Unopposed Motion for Approval of
Amendment to Partial Settlement Agreement, ECF No. 458, and Brief in Support, ECF No. 4581, that Plaintiffs Jerome Duvall, et al. filed. Defendants Martin O’Malley, et al. have not filed a
response, and the time for doing so has passed. See Loc. R. 105.2.a. On December 6, 2011, in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rules 301 and 302, Judge Hollander referred this
case to me to “conduct[] a class action fairness hearing and proceedings pertaining to the
settlement agreement of the parties.” ECF No. 449; see ECF No. 441. Having conducted the
hearing on April 17, 2012, and for the reasons stated on the record in open court and
incorporated herein by reference, I recommend that, following the time to object to this Report
and Recommendation, Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Approval of Amendment to Partial
Settlement Agreement be GRANTED.
By way of background, this case is a class action, certified pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(b)(2), see Proposed Order, ECF No. 460, involving “conditions of confinement at the
Baltimore City Detention Center (‘BCDC’), which is operated by the State of Maryland.” Pls.’
Br. 1. The parties entered into a Partial Settlement Agreement (“PSA”) on April 6, 2010, which

“resolved all substantive issues, with the exception of protection from heat injury for detainees
who, because of classification policies of the BCDC, were not eligible for the temperaturecontrolled housing made available to most detainees whom medical services classified as at high
risk of heat injury.” Id. at 3. The parties continued their settlement negotiations and, on October
31, 2011, agreed to resolve the final issue through a First Amendment to the PSA (“PSA
Amendment”), id., which is now before the Court for approval. As summarized by Plaintiffs, the
PSA Amendment provides:
Defendants [will] make available to H-1 detainees [those at high risk of heat
injury], in the absence of new and unanticipated population pressures, a total of
approximately 600 beds in housing areas in which temperature and humidity are
controlled below dangerous levels. Defendants’ new efforts in this regard include
installing air-conditioning equipment . . . in . . . the units used to house detainees
confined in the Men’s Detention Center (“MDC”) of the BCDC who have special
medical or mental health needs, as well as . . . install[ing] portable airconditioning equipment for one of the dormitories in the area used to house male
juveniles.
Id. at 3 (citations to PSA Amendment omitted). Additionally, the PSA Amendment includes
provisions “to ensure the protection of detainees vulnerable to heat injury” and “extends the
expiration date of the PSA from April 6, 2012, to June 30, 2013. Id. at 3–4 (citations to PSA
Amendment omitted).
Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Approval of Amendment to Partial Settlement Agreement
and Notice to the Class on November 22, 2011, ECF No. 446. The Court granted preliminary
approval to the PSA Amendment; approved the notice that the parties proposed; provided
instructions pursuant to which it ordered Defendants to provide the notice to class members; and
scheduled the April 17, 2012 hearing to consider whether to grant final approval to the PSA
Amendment. ECF No. 454.

2

To approve a proposed settlement that would bind class members, such as the PSA
Amendment, the Court first must conduct a hearing and make a finding that the proposed
settlement “is fair, reasonable, and adequate.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2); see In re Jiffy Lube
Securities Litigation, 927 F.2d 155, 158 (4th Cir 1991). In reviewing a settlement for fairness
under Rule 23(e), the Court may consider the following factors: “(1) the posture of the case at
the time settlement was proposed; (2) the extent of discovery that had been conducted; (3) the
circumstances surrounding the negotiations, and (4) the experience of counsel in the area of . . .
class action litigation.” Id. at 159.

As to adequacy, the Court may consider the following

factors, id.:
(1) the relative strength of the plaintiffs’ case on the merits, (2) the existence
of any difficulties of proof or strong defenses the plaintiffs are likely to
encounter if the case goes to trial, (3) the anticipated duration and expense of
additional litigation, (4) the solvency of the defendants and the likelihood of
recovery on a litigated judgment, and (5) the degree of opposition to the
settlement.
At the fairness hearing on April 17, 2012, I considered, inter alia, the posture of the case
at the time of settlement, the circumstances of the negotiations, the adequacy of the relief in
comparison to the relative strength of the parties’ cases, the lack of opposition to the settlement
from the class, and the recommendation of Plaintiffs’ counsel. For the reasons stated on the
record and incorporated by reference herein, I find that, pursuant to the Court’s Order of January
5, 2012, members of the class were provided with appropriate notice of the PSA Amendment;
and the PSA Amendment is fair, adequate, and reasonable. Therefore, I recommend that the
Court approve the PSA Amendment.
The parties have fourteen (14) days in which to file objections to this Report and
Recommendation pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) and Local Rule 301.5.b.

3

A proposed Order follows.

Dated: April 18, 2012

/s/
Paul W. Grimm
United States Magistrate Judge

lyb

4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

JEROME DUVALL, et al.
Plaintiffs,
v.
MARTIN O’MALLEY, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL NO.: ELH-94-2541

…o0o…
ORDER APPROVING AMENDMENT TO PARTIAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
This case involves a class of all persons held in custody at the Baltimore City Detention
Center, certified pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). On April 17, 2012, United States
Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm held a hearing to determine whether the Court should approve
the parties’ proposed Amendment to the Partial Settlement Agreement previously approved by
the Court.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) and for the reasons stated in the Report and
Recommendation that Judge Grimm submitted on April 18, 2012, the time for filing objections
to the Report and Recommendation having passed, the Court finds that, pursuant to its Order of
January 5, 2012, members of the class were provided with appropriate notice of the parties’
proposed amendment to the Partial Settlement Agreement. The Court further finds, after
consideration of the evidence in the record and the arguments of counsel, that the proposed
Amendment to the Partial Settlement Agreement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. In making
these findings, the Court has considered the posture of the case at the time of settlement, the
circumstances of the negotiations, the adequacy of the relief in comparison to the relative
strength of the parties’ cases, the lack of opposition to the settlement from the class, and the

recommendation of Plaintiffs’ counsel. Therefore, the Court approves the proposed amendment
to the Partial Settlement Agreement.

Ellen Lipton Hollander
United States District Judge

2