L.V.M. v. Lloyd

Background

L.V.M., a minor represented by Edith Esmeralda Mejia de Galindo, brought this class action concerning government practices and procedures affecting certain immigrant children in government custody in New York. The court had previously certified a class and issued a class-wide preliminary injunction concerning the Office of Refugee Resettlement’s director-review policy.

The parties later agreed to settle the case. The settlement agreement states that it does not admit or acknowledge liability, wrongdoing, or a violation of law by the government. The agreement became effective only upon the court’s final approval.

Settlement Terms

The settlement class consists of all children who are or will be in the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement in New York State and who are currently housed in a staff-secure facility or have ever been housed in a staff-secure or secure facility.

For three years after final approval, the government must continue following the court’s 2018 preliminary injunction as it applies to the class. The director-review policy—described in the agreement as requiring the Office of Refugee Resettlement director’s personal approval before release of certain children—will remain vacated and may not be reinstated during that period.

The government must provide class counsel with a monthly list of qualifying class members in Office of Refugee Resettlement custody and residing in a New York program. It must also provide an email address for counsel to ask whether a class member is receiving legal assistance, post notices in the five written languages most commonly used by unaccompanied children at the relevant facilities, and provide information about the settlement’s protections and how to contact class counsel.

The agreement establishes procedures for addressing alleged noncompliance, including written notice and good-faith negotiations. In certain urgent circumstances, petitioners may seek expedited court relief after three business days’ notice. The government must pay reasonable attorney’s fees for enforcement efforts, subject to a limit of $100,000 per year. Separately, the government must pay petitioners’ counsel $110,000 in fees and costs for the matter. The court retains jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.

Court’s Ruling

After a fairness hearing on December 11, 2023, the court found that the notice plan was reasonably calculated to inform the settlement class about the litigation, settlement terms, objection rights, and the opportunity to appear at the final approval hearing. The court also found that the notice satisfied the Constitution, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and other applicable law.

The court granted the petitioners’ motion, approved the settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate, certified the class for settlement purposes, appointed petitioners’ counsel as class counsel, and appointed the named plaintiff as class representative. The court dismissed the action with prejudice under the settlement agreement. The order also states that Robin Dunn Marcos, Allison Blake, Jeff Hild, and Xavier Becerra replaced former officials under a federal procedural rule, and that Elcy Valdez was dismissed because she was no longer employed by the Office of Refugee Resettlement.

The order is signed by Paul A. Crotty, United States District Judge. This order approved a negotiated settlement and did not decide whether the government had violated the law.