Clark v. City of New York
- Analisa Torres
- 1:18-cv-02334
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Clark v. City of New York, Judge Torres allowed Robert Johnson to submit a late settlement claim.
Robert Johnson and the settlement administrator were directly affected. The order also affects the City of New York and the settlement class by allowing Johnson’s late claim to be processed and potentially adding him to the class.
What happened
In Clark v. City of New York, Robert Johnson said he never received the settlement notice or claim form while incarcerated at Attica Correctional Facility. After learning about the claims process, he tried to file a claim but was told it was too late. Class counsel supported allowing a late claim, and the City took no position.
The court considered the possible harm to the City, the length and reason for the delay, and whether Johnson acted honestly. It found the delay was less than one month after final settlement approval, the City would face little harm from one additional claim, there was no sign of bad faith, and unreliable prison mail was an understandable reason for the delay.
Judge Analisa Torres directed the settlement administrator to process Johnson’s claim form and determine whether he is entitled to participate in the settlement class. If he is entitled to participate, he must be included in the class.
The detailed version
- Clark v. City of New York · No. 1:18-cv-02334
- Analisa Torres
- Jan. 7, 2025
Background
The court had granted final approval of the parties’ class-action settlement on November 19, 2024. On December 12, 2024, Elizabeth David contacted the court and said that her son, Robert Johnson, was incarcerated at Attica Correctional Facility and had hoped to participate in the settlement class. She said he never received a settlement notice or claim form.
After Johnson learned about the claims process through other channels, he tried to file a claim. Rust Consulting, Inc., the settlement administrator, told him he could not participate because he had not filed a timely claim form. The court asked the parties for their positions. Class counsel supported giving Johnson an opportunity to submit a late claim, while the City took no position.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that district courts have broad authority to supervise the administration and distribution of settlement funds. That authority includes accepting late claims even when the settlement agreement sets a deadline. The court applied factors from Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Limited Partnership: the risk of prejudice, the length and effect of the delay, the reason for the delay and whether it was within the claimant’s control, and whether the claimant acted in good faith.
The court found that allowing Johnson to submit a late claim would cause only minor prejudice to the City because he represented one person in a large settlement class. The City’s decision not to take a position supported that conclusion. Johnson’s delay was less than one month after final settlement approval and was not excessive. The court also found no indication of bad faith and considered unreliable prison mail service an understandable reason for the delay.
Order
The court allowed Johnson to submit his late claim for processing. Judge Analisa Torres directed the settlement administrator to process the claim form to determine whether Johnson is entitled to participate in the settlement class. If he is entitled to participate, he must be included in the class. The order did not itself determine that Johnson was entitled to settlement benefits; it required the administrator to make that determination.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.