D.S. v. Washington State Department of Children Youth and Families

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: September 21, 2022
• Docket: 2:21-cv-00113
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 The Honorable Barbara J. Rothstein

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 D.S.; D.Y. by and through his next friend 10 JULIE KELLOGG-MORTENSEN; H.A. by and through his next friend KRISTEN 11 BISHOPP; and DISABILITY RIGHTS No. 2:21-cv-00113-BJR WASHINGTON, a nonprofit membership 12 organization for the federally mandated 13 Protection and Advocacy Systems, ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR FINAL 14 Plaintiffs, APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 15 v.

16 WASHINGTON STATE 17 DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN, YOUTH, AND FAMILIES; and ROSS 18 HUNTER, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Washington State 19 Department of Children, Youth, and Families, 20

21 Defendants.

22 THIS MATTER having come before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion for Final 23 Approval of Class Settlement Agreement and having been duly considered, the Court makes the 24 25 following findings: 26 ORDER - 1 1 The Court has jurisdiction over the claims against all Defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2 1331, 1343(a). Venue is proper in the Western District of Washington pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 3 1391(b). 4 The Court, in its June 24, 2022 Order, preliminarily approved the parties’ proposed 5 Settlement Agreement. Dkt. 97. The Court’s Order further approved the parties’ notice to class 6 members regarding the proposed settlement (see Declaration of Susan Kas (“Kas Decl.,” Dkt. 93- 7 2), Ex. B), and the method for distributing the notice as described in the Notice Plan (see Kas 8 9 Decl., Ex. C). The Order also provided class members until August 12, 2022 to submit written 10 objections. 11 The Court conducted a final approval hearing, via Zoom, on September 15, 2022. Counsel 12 for Plaintiffs and Defendants presented argument as to why the Settlement Agreement is fair, 13 reasonable, and adequate and should be approved. The Court also heard arguments from counsel 14 for James and Shaylee Medicraft, who filed objections to the Settlement Agreement on behalf of 15 16 their children. See Dkt. 111. The Medicrafts, while not objecting to the substance of the 17 Settlement Agreement, argued that they did not receive individual notice; that the proposed 18 settlement did not provide class members with an opt-out procedure; and that this case should 19 proceed to trial in order to benefit class members with factual findings that would collaterally estop 20 Defendants in subsequent individual litigations for damages. See id. Finally, the Court heard from 21 several social work practitioners, and parents of children who had been in Defendants’ custody, 22 who expressed both satisfaction and concerns with the proposed Settlement Agreement. The Court 23 24 finds that class members and others affected by the proposed Settlement Agreement received 25 adequate opportunity to object. 26 ORDER - 2 1 As stated on the record during the final approval hearing, the Court finds, as counsel for 2 the Medicrafts conceded, that the Medicrafts are not class members and therefore have no standing 3 to object to the proposed settlement. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(5)(A) (“[a]ny class member may 4 object to the propos[ed] [settlement] if it requires court approval” (emphasis added)). The Court 5 also finds that the parties complied with the Notice Plan in all material respects, meeting the due 6 process requirements of the United States Constitution and Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil 7 Procedure. See Dkts. 98-100. Given that the class in this case was certified under Rule 23(b)(2) 8 9 (see Dkt. 77), individual notice to class members was not required. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(A); 10 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 363 (2011) (recognizing that Rule 23(b)(2) “does 11 not require that class members be given notice”). For the same reason, the proposed settlement 12 was not required to provide class members with an opt-out procedure. See Wal-Mart Stores, 564 13 U.S. at 362 (recognizing that Rule 23 “provides no opportunity for … (b)(2) class members to opt 14 out”). 15 16 The Court finds that the proposed Settlement Agreement (Dkt. 94-1) is fair, reasonable, 17 adequate, and beneficial to class members in light of the relief Plaintiffs have obtained in 18 settlement to achieve the goals of the litigation. Further litigation would expose both sides to risk 19 and expense, given the complexity of this lawsuit and the likely duration of litigation. The 20 Settlement Agreement is the result of arms’ length negotiations, conducted with the assistance of 21 a skilled neutral mediator and after thorough factual and legal investigation and discovery, and is 22 not the product of fraud, collusion, or overreaching. While the proposed settlement will not result 23 24 in factual findings that could later be used in prosecuting individual lawsuits seeking damages, 25 Plaintiffs, in this case, never sought damages, but instead pursued only injunctive relief of the sort 26 contemplated by the Settlement Agreement. No class member or interested party has raised ORDER - 3 1 concerns that alter the underlying fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the Settlement 2 || Agreement. 3 The Court, having fully considered the matter and good cause appearing, hereby ORDERS: 4 1. The parties’ Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement is GRANTED. The Court finds and concludes that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and

7 adequate. 8 2. The parties’ Settlement Agreement and Order, attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration 9 of Susan Kas in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval (Dkt. 94-1) is 10 APPROVED and incorporated herein. 3. The parties to the Settlement Agreement and Order shall perform all of their obligations 12 thereunder. The case is DISMISSED, but the Court shall retain jurisdiction over the matter to enforce the provisions of the Settlement Agreement and Order until

1s Defendants’ obligations terminate under paragraph 36 of the Agreement. 16 4. The Settlement Agreement and Order is binding on class members. It settles all of 17 Plaintiffs’ claims for class-wide injunctive relief against Defendants that were asserted 18 in the Complaint filed on January 28, 2021. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: September 21, 2022 21 Asner eu, 23 Barbara Jacobs Rothstein 24 U.S. District Court Judge 25 26 ORDER - 4