## Facts

- Inmates housed at the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center (the jail) filed a class-action lawsuit against the City of Albuquerque (the city).
- The inmates alleged that the conditions of confinement at the jail were unlawful.
- After the lawsuit was filed, the inmates and the city negotiated a stipulated settlement agreement intended to resolve the jail-conditions claims on a class-wide basis.
- The parties submitted the stipulated settlement agreement to the court for review and approval as a class settlement.

## Issues

1. Whether the court should approve the parties’ stipulated settlement agreement resolving the inmates’ class-action claims challenging conditions at the jail.

## Decision

- The court reviewed the stipulated settlement agreement as a proposed class-action settlement.
- The court approved the stipulated settlement agreement.

## Legal Principles

- In a class action, any settlement that would bind absent class members requires court approval under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e).
- When deciding whether to approve a class settlement, the court must determine whether the agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate for the class in light of the case’s claims, risks, and the relief obtained.
- A court’s approval of a stipulated settlement agreement gives the agreement binding effect on class members within the settlement’s scope, subject to the approval order’s terms.

## Conclusion

McLendon v. City of Albuquerque involves inmates’ class-action challenge to allegedly unlawful jail conditions and the parties’ effort to resolve those claims through a stipulated settlement agreement; the court’s role was to review the proposed class settlement under Rule 23(e) and approve it, making the settlement binding according to its terms.


McLendon v. City of Albuquerque, 2005 WL 6003617 (2005)