INTERFAITH COMMUNITY, et al v. HONEYWELL, et al

Filing 1271

Consent ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS on Remanded Fees and Settling "Appeal Overlap Fees". Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 7/28/14. (jd, )

Case

2:95-cv-02097-JLL

Document

1269-1

Filed

07/24/14

Page

1

of

6

PagelD:

52464

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
INTERFAITH COMMUNITY
ORGANIZATION, et al.
Plaintiffs,
v.
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., et a!.
Defendants.

HACKENSACK RIVERKEEPER, INC.,
et at.
Plaintiffs,
v.
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.,
et a!.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civ. No. 95-2097 (JLL)

Civ. No. 06-22 (JLL)
(Consolidated under
Civ. No. 05-5955 (JLL))

All Actions Consolidated Under
Civ. No. 95-2097 (JLL)

CONSENT ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON
REMANDED FEES AND SETTLING “APPEAL OVERLAP FEES”
WHEREAS, the Interfaith Community Organization and individual plaintiffs in

Interfaith Community Organization v. Honeywell International Inc., D.N.J. Civ. No. 95-2097
(DMC) (the “Study Area 7 case”), and the Hackensack Riverkeeper and individual plaintiffs in

Hackensack Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Honeywell International Inc., D.N.J. Civ. No. 06-22 (DMC-PS),
consolidated with Civ. No. 05-5955 (all consolidated under Civ. No. 95-2097) (the “Study Areas
5 and 6 case”), sought post-judgment and post-decree monitoring fees for 2009 (ECF No. 1005
in Dkt. No. 95-2097) (the “2009 Fees Application”) and for the first half of 2010 (ECF No. 1047
in Dkt. No. 95-2097 (the “2010 First Half Fees Application”);

Case 2:95-cv-02097-JLL Document 1269-1 Filed 07/24/14 Page 2 of 6 PagelD
: 52465

WHEREAS, in the Study Areas 5 and 6 case, Plaintiffs sought the Outstanding Fees and
Expenses as defined by the NJCU Consent Decree (ECF No. 302 in Dkt. No. 05-595
5, paras. 28,
149) in a separate application (ECF No. 342 in Dkt. No. 05-5955) (the “Outst
anding Fees
Application”);
WHEREAS, the United States District Court for New Jersey (the “District Court”
) issued
an Opinion and an Order (ECF Nos. 1089 and 1090 in Dkt. No. 95-2097) awardi
ng Plaintiffs’

fees and expenses under each of the three fee applications. The Court directed the
Parties to
confer regarding the calculation of fees and expenses awarded by the Court and
to submit a
stipulation or proposed order;
WHEREAS, on October 4, 2011, the District Court issued a Judgment and Order
Regarding Fees and Expenses Awarded Under the Opinion and Order of Septem
ber 8, 2011 (the
“Final Judgment”) that calculated the final award to Plaintiffs of fees and expens
es under each of
the three fee applications (ECF No. 1096);
WHEREAS, Honeywell appealed the Final Judgment to the Third Circuit;
WHEREAS, on July 22, 2013, the Third Circuit issued an opinion that, inter a/ia,
vacated the District Court’s fee award and remanded the case for further procee
dings consistent
with its opinion, see Interfaith Community Organization v. Honeywell Int’l inc.,
726 F.3d 403
(3d Cir. 2013);
WHEREAS, following the Third Circuit’s decision, the District Court appoin
ted a
Special Master to, inter alia, assist on remand with the three fee applications
(ECF No. 1212);
WHEREAS, after submissions and oral argument, on May 19, 2014, the
Special Master
issued a Report and Recommendation on Remanded Fees (ECF No. 1251)
(the “Report and
Recommendation”);

2

Case 2:95-cv-02097-JLL Document 1269-1 Filed 07124/14 Page 3 of 6 PagelD: 52466

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Report and
Recommendation including, inter a/ia, that certain calculations contained in the Report and
Recommendation required correction (ECF No. 1254);
WHEREAS, after submissions, on July 9, 2014, the Special Master granted in part and
denied in part the Motion for Recommendation (ECF No. 1268), including inter alia, ordering
that Revised Defendant’s Exhibit I shall be substituted for the Recommendation section (pages
56-57) in the Report and Recommendation;
WHEREAS, in lieu of a motion to adopt under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(f)(2),
Plaintiffs and Honeywell file this consent order for adoption of the Report and Recommendation,
as modified, by the District Court;
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and Honeywell also file this consent order regarding settlement of
certain outstanding disputed fees for the second half of 2010 and 2011;
NOW THEREFORE, the Parties agree to the entry of this Consent Order with the
following terms:
1. The above recitals are incorporated herein as though fully set forth, as operative
provisions of this Consent Order.
2. Plaintiffs and Honeywell agree to adoption of the Report and Recommendation on
Remanded Fees (ECF No. 1251), as modified by the Special Master’s ruling on the Motion
for
Reconsideration (ECF No. 1268), resulting in an award of $2,907,686.25.
3. The Report and Recommendation on Remanded Fees (ECF No. 1251), as modified
by the Special Master’s ruling on the Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 1268),
resulting in
an award of $2,907,686.25, is hereby adopted by the District Court. This award
is off-set by the

3

Case 2:95-cv-02097-JLL Document 1269-1 Filed 07/24/14 Page 4 of 6 PagelD: 52467

$1,000,000 payment that Honeywell made to Plaintiffs in conjunction with the 2011 appeal (ECF
No. 1259).
4. Plaintiffs and Honeywell agree to settle the “Appeal Overlap Fees/Expenses,” as that
term was defined in the Consent Order Regarding Settlement of Certain Attorneys’
Fees and
Expenses Incurred in Second Half 2010 (ECF No. 1114) and the Consent Order Regard
ing
Settlement of Certain Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses Incurred in 2011 (ECF No. 1155),
in the
amount of $90,098.60.
5. Within 60 days of the entry of this Consent Order, Honeywell shall pay the sum of
$1 ,997784.85 in full satisfaction of all obligations, duties and responsibilities of Honeywell
with
respect to Plaintiffs’ fees and expenses for the Outstanding Fees Application, the
2009 Fees
Application, the 2010 First Half Fees Application, and the Appeal Overlap Fees/E
xpenses as
defined in ECF Nos. 1114 and 1155, including all interest with respect to such amoun
t, except
for the fees and expenses related to fees litigation or mediation (the “Fees on Fees”)
, although
Honeywell reserves the right to object to Plaintiffs’ entitlement to the Fees on Fees
in whole or
in part. The payment will be made to Plaintiffs’ counsel, Terris, Pravlik & Millian
, LLP
(“TPM”).
6. Upon TPM’s receipt of the payment in paragraph 4, Plaintiffs and TPM shall
release
Honeywell (and its predecessors, successors, subsidiaries, affiliates, officer
s, directors, agents,
employees, representatives and assigns) from any and all claims for Plaintiffs’
fees and expenses
for the Outstanding Fees Application, the 2009 Fees Application, the 2010 First
Half Fees
Application, and the Appeal Overlap Fees/Expenses as defined in ECF Nos.
1114 and 1155,
other than the Fees on Fees.

4

Case 2:95-cv-02097-JLL Document 1269-1 Filed 07/24/14 Page 5 of 6 PagelD: 52468

7. It is understood and agreed that this Consent Order is not intended, nor is it to be
construed, as an admission by Honeywell of liability nor does it waive any arguments in any
proceeding regarding disputed attorneys’ fees and expenses, including, but not limited to, any
arguments Honeywell may have regarding the entirety of fees and expenses incurred by
Plaintiffs in the time periods not covered by this Consent Order. This Consent Order,
therefore,
shall not be taken or used or be deemed to be admissible in evidence, in an action, cause
of
action, or proceeding except to enforce the terms of this Consent Order or to define the
dispute
between the Parties regarding the fees incurred at issue in the three fee applications.
8. Each person executing this Consent Order represents and warrants that he or she is
duly authorized and empowered to enter into this Consent Order and has the author
ity and
approval to bind the Party so represented.
9. Each Party represents and warrants that he or it has been represented by, and has
consulted with, the counsel of his or its choice regarding the provisions, obligations,
rights, risks,
and legal effects of this Consent Order.
10. This Consent Order shall not be modified or terminated, in whole or in part,
without
the written agreement of the Parties and the consent of the Court.

5

Case 2:95-cv-02097-JLL Document 1269-1 Filed 07/24/14 Page 6 of 6 PagelD: 52469

Consented to By:
s/David I Sheehan
David J. Sheehan (DS-4818)
Baker Hostetler
45 Rockefeller Plaza
11th Floor
New York, NY 10111
[phone]

s/Edwarl Lloyd
Edward Lloyd
Columbia Law School
435 West 116th Street, Room 831
New York, NY 10027
[phone]

Michael D. Daneker (MD-3300)
Arnold & Porter LLP
555 12th Street, NW.
Washington, DC 20004
[phone]

Bruce J. Terris
Carolyn Smith Pravlik
Terris, Pravlik & Millian, LLP
1121 12th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
[phone]

Counsellor Defndant Honeywell
International Inc.

Counselfor Plaintiffs

SO ORDERED:
Date:

7/)
inares
States District Judge

6