Wood v. De Blasio

Background

The plaintiffs sought final approval of a proposed class-action settlement that the court had preliminarily approved on March 3, 2023. The case arose from a June 4, 2020 protest in the Mott Haven neighborhood of the Bronx. The settlement class covered people who were detained, arrested, or subjected to force by police officers on East 136th Street between Brook Avenue and Brown Place during the protest, as well as people who received a summons or Desk Appearance Ticket after an arrest at that location.

The settlement provided $21,500 to each eligible class member and an additional $2,500 to each class member who received a Desk Appearance Ticket. It also provided $21,500 service awards to each of the five class representatives. The City separately agreed to pay class counsel $2.25 million for attorneys’ fees and costs incurred through March 3, 2023. The parties agreed to negotiate fees and costs incurred after that date at the end of the case.

Class Response and Notice

Of 394 people initially identified as potential class members, 137 were excluded because they had previously settled related claims. That left 256 potential eligible class members. The claims administrator received 251 claim forms; 28 were from people who had already released their claims, and one was from someone who was not a class member. In total, 222 of the 256 eligible class members submitted claims. No one objected to the settlement or opted out.

The parties mailed notices and claim forms in English and Spanish to identified class members, published notices in English- and Spanish-language newspapers, created a bilingual settlement website, used social media and press coverage, searched public records and online sources, and hired an investigator to locate some missing class members. The court found these efforts adequate and consistent with due-process requirements.

Class counsel also reviewed claims from people who had not been arrested but said they had been detained or subjected to police force. The parties resolved all but three disputed claims. The court referred those three claims to Magistrate Judge Gorenstein for a factual determination of whether the claimants were class members. The parties agreed to accept that determination as final and binding.

Court’s Rulings

Judge Colleen McMahon granted final approval to the settlement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), finding it fair, reasonable, and adequate. The court relied in part on the strong response from the class, including the absence of objections or opt-outs and the high percentage of eligible members who submitted claims.

The court certified the class for settlement purposes under Rule 23(b)(3), found that the notice was adequate and materially consistent with the preliminary approval order, approved the five $21,500 service awards, and approved the $2.25 million payment to class counsel for fees and costs through March 3, 2023. The court also approved the parties’ request to include seven claims filed between August 30 and September 30, 2023, and one claim to be filed before October 31, 2023.

The court concluded that the settlement approval motion and all requested related relief were granted. The opinion did not decide the underlying constitutional claims on their merits; instead, it approved the negotiated class settlement and related administrative and fee provisions.