D.S. et al v. Washington State Department of Children Youth and Families et al, No. 2:2021cv00113 - Document 124 (W.D. Wash. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER granting Plaintiff's 102 Unopposed Motion for Order Approving Attorneys' Fees and Costs Following Mediation. Pursuant to Rule 23(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 42 U.S.C. § 1988, Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Order Approving Attorneys' Fees and Costs Following Mediation is GRANTED and the parties' agreed upon attorneys' fees and costs award of $2,150,000.00 to Plaintiffs is approved. In accordance with their agreement, Defendants shall pay $2,150,000.00 to Plaintiffs' counsel within thirty (30) days following the entry of this Order. Signed by Judge Barbara J. Rothstein. (SB)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
D.S. et al v. Washington State Department of Children Youth and Families et al Doc. 124 Case 2:21-cv-00113-BJR Document 124 Filed 09/21/22 Page 1 of 6 The Honorable Barbara J. Rothstein 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 10 11 12 13 D.S.; D.Y. by and through his next friend JULIE KELLOGG-MORTENSEN; H.A. by and through his next friend KRISTEN BISHOPP; and DISABILITY RIGHTS WASHINGTON, a nonprofit membership organization for the federally mandated Protection and Advocacy Systems, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Plaintiffs, v. 23 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ORDER APPROVING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS FOLLOWING MEDIATION WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN, YOUTH, AND FAMILIES; and ROSS HUNTER, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Washington State Department of Children, Youth, and Families, Defendants. 21 22 No. 2:21-cv-00113-BJR THIS MATTER having come before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Order 24 Approving Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Following Mediation, and having been duly considered, the 25 Court makes the following findings: 26 ORDER - 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:21-cv-00113-BJR Document 124 Filed 09/21/22 Page 2 of 6 1 1. Plaintiffs filed this class action lawsuit on January 28, 2021, alleging that they and 2 a class of foster children with disabilities were being harmed by Defendants’ failure to correct 3 systemic deficiencies in Washington State’s child welfare system. Plaintiffs sought declaratory 4 and injunctive relief, alleging that Defendants’ failures violate the rights of foster children with 5 6 7 disabilities under the United States Constitution; Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq.; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Rehabilitation 8 Act”), 29 U.S.C. § 794; and the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (“AACWA”), 9 42 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq., 670 et seq. Dkt. 1. 10 2. On June 29, 2021, the Court granted in part Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary 11 injunction, which required Defendants to address practices for children in “placement exceptions,” 12 including the use of hotel and government offices. Dkt. 63. Plaintiffs’ counsel subsequently 13 negotiated with Defendants to stipulate to the definition of a class, which was certified on 14 15 16 September 22, 2021. Dkt. 77. 3. On June 15, 2021, the parties began engaging in mediation. Over the course of the 17 next year, they met over a dozen times and continuously exchanged numerous written proposals 18 and settlement drafts, while also engaging in discovery. These efforts resulted in the Settlement 19 20 Agreement, which was executed on June 6, 2022, and was granted preliminary approval by the Court on June 24, 2022. Dkt. 97. The Settlement Agreement provides for a comprehensive array 21 22 23 24 of remedies to expand placement options and improve practices to better serve the complex and intersectional needs of the Class and their families. 4. The Settlement Agreement itself affirms “an agreement that attorneys’ fees, costs, 25 and expenses shall be paid to Plaintiffs’ Counsel for the litigation, mediation, and post-settlement 26 monitoring through the date Defendants’ obligations under this Agreement terminate.” Dkt. 94-1 ORDER - 2 Case 2:21-cv-00113-BJR Document 124 Filed 09/21/22 Page 3 of 6 1 ¶ 56. After the parties negotiated and submitted their Settlement Agreement for preliminary 2 approval, they mediated on June 21, 2022, and reached an agreement for Defendants to pay 3 Plaintiffs $2,150,000.00 for their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs from case inception to the 4 5 date this Court enters final approval on the Settlement Agreement. Plaintiffs represent that their actual attorneys’ fees and costs, after the exercise of billing judgment to remove any excess, 6 7 8 9 redundant, or unreasonably duplicative time, and applying a lodestar, is at least approximately $2,601,434.30, and their expenses are $19,258.27 as of July 20, 2022. 5. Plaintiffs have filed an unopposed motion seeking approval of the mediated total 10 amount of $2,150,000.00 attorneys’ fees and costs. They submit with their motion detailed time 11 logs and declarations of Plaintiffs’ counsel, documentation to support their billing rates, and 12 records of necessary litigation expenditures. The Court has reviewed these documents and the 13 summary of the time spent in this litigation. These fees and costs are for necessary time spent 14 15 engaging in extensive pre-lawsuit negotiation and investigation; filing the complaint and obtaining 16 a preliminary injunction and class certification; conducting wide-ranging discovery; and mediating 17 extensively with the State of Washington toward the Settlement Agreement that requires 18 implementation of child welfare reforms across the state. The litigation costs and expenditures 19 incurred by Plaintiffs’ counsel were necessary and are also fully documented. 20 6. The Court has reviewed the hourly rates of the attorneys and paralegals that 21 22 23 24 25 26 recorded time in this litigation, which the Court finds to be in line with the hourly rates charged in the Seattle market for reasonably comparable work performed by attorneys of reasonably similar skill, experience, and reputation. 7. Plaintiffs are the prevailing party and are entitled to their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Plaintiffs represent the amount of time expended, hourly rates ORDER - 3 Case 2:21-cv-00113-BJR Document 124 Filed 09/21/22 Page 4 of 6 1 requested, and reasonable costs for the covered period results in a potential lodestar of 2 $2,620,692,57. The $2,150,000.000 agreed fee award thus represents approximately an 18% 3 reduction in the lodestar and costs that might otherwise be recoverable by Plaintiffs’ counsel. 4 5 6 7 Given the scope and complexity of this litigation, the amount of time expended and documented in the course of representing Plaintiffs in this matter, the discovery undertaken by Plaintiffs, the hourly rates Plaintiffs’ counsel have requested, the costs Plaintiffs’ counsel have incurred and 8 documented, and the favorable results achieved, the Court finds that the stipulated $2,150,000.00 9 attorneys’ fees and costs award is fair and reasonable in this matter. 10 8. As indicated on the Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement, which was 11 distributed to the Class in accordance with the approved Notice Plan (see Dkts. 97-100), Plaintiffs 12 have posted their Unopposed Motion for Approval of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs on the Disability 13 Rights Washington website at https://www.disabilityrightswa.org/cases/d-s-v-washington-state14 15 department-of-children-youth-and-families and the National Center for Youth Law website at 16 https://youthlaw.org/settlement-ds-v-washington-state-dcyf. Notice has been directed to class 17 members in a reasonable manner pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h). 18 19 20 9. On August 12, 2022, James and Shaylee Medicraft filed objections to the Settlement Agreement on behalf of their children. Dkt. 111.1 Their objections point to certain signs of collusion between class counsel and defendants in reaching a settlement agreement, laid 21 22 23 out in In re Bluetooth Headset Product Liability Litigation, 654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011), that the Medicrafts suggest are present in this case. Specifically, according to the Medicrafts, (1) “the class 24 25 26 1 As counsel for the Medicrafts conceded during the final approval hearing held before the Court on September 15, 2022, the Medicrafts are not class members and thus have no standing to object to the proposed settlement. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(5)(A) (“[a]ny class member may object to the propos[ed] [settlement] if it requires court approval” (emphasis added)). ORDER - 4 Case 2:21-cv-00113-BJR Document 124 Filed 09/21/22 Page 5 of 6 1 receive[d] no monetary distribution but class counsel are amply rewarded”; (2) “the parties 2 negotiate[d] a ‘clear sailing’ arrangement providing for the payment of attorneys’ fees separate 3 and apart from class funds”; and (3) “the parties arrange[d] for fees not awarded to revert to 4 defendants rather than be added to the class fund.” Id. at 947. The Court finds that none of these 5 6 7 Bluetooth factors are present or otherwise suggest collusion here. As to the first Bluetooth factor, Plaintiffs’ lawsuit never sought damages, but instead pursued only injunctive relief of the sort 8 contemplated by the Settlement Agreement. As to the second factor, the Settlement Agreement 9 contained no agreed amount for attorneys’ fees that Defendants promised not to challenge. Rather, 10 as noted above, negotiations as to attorneys’ fees did not begin until the Settlement Agreement 11 was already signed, and the Agreement contemplated a contested motion if the parties could not 12 reach consensus on the amount of fees. Finally, the third Bluetooth factor concerning a “reverter” 13 clause does not apply to a settlement, as here, for injunctive relief. See Campbell v. Facebook, 14 15 Inc., 951 F.3d 1106, 1127 (9th Cir. 2020) (“An injunctive-relief-only class settlement, by 16 definition, has no fund into which any fees not awarded by the court could possibly revert.”). For 17 the above reasons, the Court finds that the Medicrafts’ objections to Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees lack 18 merit. 19 20 10. Absent any meritorious objection to the stipulated $2,150,000.00 attorneys’ fees and costs award, and finding it to be fair and reasonable in this matter, the Court approves the 21 22 23 award. Now, therefore, the Court hereby ORDERS that, pursuant to Rule 23(h) of the Federal 24 Rules of Civil Procedure and 42 U.S.C. § 1988, Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Order 25 Approving Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Following Mediation is GRANTED and the parties’ agreed 26 upon attorneys’ fees and costs award of $2,150,000.00 to Plaintiffs is approved. In accordance ORDER - 5 Case 2:21-cv-00113-BJR Document 124 Filed 09/21/22 Page 6 of 6 1 with their agreement, Defendants shall pay $2,150,000.00 to Plaintiffs’ counsel within thirty (30) 2 days following the entry of this Order. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: September 21, 2022 5 6 _______________________________ Barbara Jacobs Rothstein U.S. District Court Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER - 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
