Hasenkamp v. The Shah Trust

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Michael Hasenkamp, No. CV-21-02226-PHX-DLR 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 21,000 Holdings LLC and Edward Gunkel, 13 Defendants.

15 The parties have notified the Court that they reached a settlement, which they ask the Court to approve. (Doc. 52.) Because the settlement involves a minor, the Court must “conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the settlement serves the best interests of the minor.” Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011). This involves asking “whether the net amount distributed to each minor plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable, in light of the facts of the case, the minor’s specific claim, and recovery in similar cases.” Id. at 1182.

22 Here, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and his minor daughter, alleged a violation of the Federal and Arizona Fair Housing Acts and sought injunctive relief, compensatory 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 liability or fault, includes a confidential sum to reimburse for legal fees and a return of the pet fee and security deposit. The settlement does not award a “specific dollar amount” to 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.

10 - (Legs Cogn — 12 Do . Rayes United States District Judge _2-