Hasenkamp v. The Shah Trust ( 2022 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Michael Hasenkamp, No. CV-21-02226-PHX-DLR 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 21,000 Holdings LLC and Edward Gunkel, 13 Defendants. 14 15 The parties have notified the Court that they reached a settlement, which they ask 16 the Court to approve. (Doc. 52.) Because the settlement involves a minor, the Court must 17 “conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the settlement serves the best interests of 18 the minor.” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011). This involves 19 asking “whether the net amount distributed to each minor plaintiff in the settlement is fair 20 and reasonable, in light of the facts of the case, the minor’s specific claim, and recovery in 21 similar cases.” Id. at 1182. 22 Here, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and his minor daughter, alleged a violation of 23 the Federal and Arizona Fair Housing Acts and sought injunctive relief, compensatory 24 damages (as to allegedly improper pet fees and security deposits), and punitive damages. 25 The settlement, in which Defendants 21,000 Holdings and Edward Gunkel do not admit 26 liability or fault, includes a confidential sum to reimburse for legal fees and a return of the 27 pet fee and security deposit. The settlement does not award a “specific dollar amount” to 28 the minor. 1 The Court finds the net recovery of the minor to be fair and reasonable. Plaintiffs || primarily requested equitable relief, which was awarded. The compensable damages were □□ born by the minor’s guardian, and punitive damages cannot be awarded if no liability is found. The Court also finds good cause for approving the settlement as a whole. 5 IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Approve Settlement Involving a Minor (Doc. 6 52) is GRANTED and the settlement is approved. 7 Dated this 28th day of December, 2022. 8 9 10 - (Legs Cogn — 12 Do . Rayes United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _2-