Case 2:06-cv-02334-LKK-DAD Document 1 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 1 of 25

1 LAW OFFICES OF STUART E. FAGAN STUART E. FAGAN, State Bar No. 152732
2 P.O. Box 503741 San Diego, California 92150-3741
3 Telephone: (858) 220-9601 Facsimile: (858) 676-5339
4 Email: fairhousinglawyer@sbcglobal.net
5 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 JESSE ROBIDOUX; REGINA

)

ROBIDOUX; RANDALL REICHENBERG )

12 JR. and JESSE J. ROBIDOUX JR., minors, )

by and through their GUARDIAN AD

)

13 LITEM, REGINA ROBIDOUX; SHAUN )

JOHNSON; LORENA LINGENFELTER; )

14 HANNAH BURK and MICHAEL BURK, )

minors, by and through their GUARDIAN )

15 AD LITEM, LORENA LINGENFELTER, )

individuals,

)

16

)

Plaintiffs,

)

17

)

v.

)

18

)

WACKER FAMILY TRUST; WAYNE )

19 WACKER, EILEEN WACKER, and

)

CHRISTINE WACKER, individually and )

20 doing business as VILLA SERRANO

)

APARTMENTS; BRIAN ROSENGREN, )

21

)

)

22

Defendants.

)

____________________________________ )

23

No.
COMPLAINT FOR MONETARY, DECLARATORY, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY ___________________________

24

25

26

27

28

Case 2:06-cv-02334-LKK-DAD Document 1 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 2 of 25

1

I.

2

INTRODUCTION

3

4

1. This action seeks monetary, declaratory, and injunctive relief against defendants

5 for discriminating against families with children in the operation of the Villa Serrano Apartments based

6 on familial status and for coercing, intimidating, threatening, retaliating, or interfering with plaintiffs in

7 the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of their having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of their

8 having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or

9 protected by the Fair Housing Act and/or the Fair Employment and Housing Act in violation of the

10 Fair Housing Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§3601 et seq., and related federal and state laws.

11

12

II.

13

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

14

15

2. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 in that the

16 claims alleged herein arise under the laws of the United States. This Court has supplemental

17 jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367 to hear and determine Plaintiffs' state law claims because

18 those claims are related to Plaintiffs' federal law claims and arise out of a common nucleus of related

19 facts. Plaintiffs' state law claims are related to Plaintiffs' federal law claims such that those claims

20 form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.

21

22

3. Venue is proper in that the claims alleged herein arose within the City of

23 Carmichael, Sacramento County, California.

24

25

26

27

28

Case 2:06-cv-02334-LKK-DAD Document 1 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 3 of 25

1

III.

2

PARTIES

3

4

4. Plaintiffs Jesse Robidoux and Regina Robidoux, reside with their minor

5 children, plaintiffs Randall Reichenberg Jr. and Jesse J. Robidoux Jr., in Carmichael, California.

6 Plaintiffs Randall Reichenberg Jr. and Jesse J. Robidoux Jr. are represented herein by their natural

7 mother, Regina Robidoux.

8

9

5. Plaintiff Shaun Johnson resides in Carmichael, California, and has a mental

10 impairment which substantially limits one or more of her major life activities.

11

12

6. Plaintiff Lorena Lingenfelter resides with her minor children, Hannah Burk and

13 Michael Burk, in Sacramento, California. Plaintiffs Hannah Burk and Michael Burk are represented

14 herein by their natural mother, Lorena Lingenfelter. Plaintiff Lorena Lingenfelter has physical and

15 mental impairments which substantially limit one or more of her major life activities.

16

17

7. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves pursuant to the California

18 Unfair Business Practices Act, California Business & Professions Code Sec. 17204.

19

20

8. Defendants Wacker Family Trust, Eileen Wacker, and Wayne Wacker were at

21 all relevant times the owners and operators of the Villa Serrano Apartments. The Villa Serrano

22 Apartments is an apartment complex comprised of approximately 44 units located at 5241 Marconi

23 Ave., Carmichael, California (the "Villa Serrano Apartments").

24

25

9. Defendants Eileen Wacker, Wayne Wacker, Christine Wacker, and Brian

26 Rosengren reside in the City of Marysville, Sacramento County, California.

27

28

Case 2:06-cv-02334-LKK-DAD Document 1 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 4 of 25

1

10. During Defendants Eileen Wacker and Wayne Wacker’s ownership, the Villa

2 Serrano Apartments were engaged in the business of renting units at the Villa Serrano Apartments to

3 members of the public. Defendants Eileen Wacker and Wayne Wacker advertised the Villa Serrano 4 Apartments as available for rent by members of the public. Defendants Eileen Wacker and Wayne 5 Wacker employed on-site managers to assist in the operation of the Villa Serrano Apartments.

6

7

11. Each defendant is sued herein individually and as doing business as the Villa

8 Serrano Apartments.

9

10

12. Defendant Christine Wacker is, and at all times herein relevant was, one of the

11 resident property managers of the Villa Serrano Apartments and the agent, employee, or representative 12 of Defendants Wayne Wacker and Eileen Wacker; in doing the acts or in omitting to act as alleged in 13 this complaint, was acting within the course and scope of her actual or apparent authority pursuant to

14 such agency or employment; or the alleged acts or omissions of her as agent or employee was 15 subsequently ratified and adopted by Defendants Wayne Wacker and Eileen Wacker as principals.

16

17

13. From December 2004 through September 2005, Plaintiff Shaun Johnson was a

18 part-time, resident property manager of the Villa Serrano Apartments and the agent, employee, or 19 representative of Defendants Wayne Wacker and Eileen Wacker; in doing the acts or in omitting to act 20 as alleged in this complaint, was acting within the course and scope of her actual or apparent authority

21 pursuant to such agency or employment; or the alleged acts or omissions of her as agent or employee

22 were subsequently ratified and adopted by Defendants Wayne Wacker and Eileen Wacker as principals.

23

24

14. From September 2005, Paul Doe was a part-time resident property manager

25 of the Villa Serrano Apartments and the agent, employee, or representative of Defendants Wayne

26 Wacker and Eileen Wacker; in doing the acts or in omitting to act as alleged in this complaint, was 27 acting within the course and scope of his actual or apparent authority pursuant to such agency or 28 employment; or the alleged acts or omissions of his as agent or employee was subsequently ratified and

Case 2:06-cv-02334-LKK-DAD Document 1 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 5 of 25

1 adopted by Defendants Wayne Wacker and Eileen Wacker as principals.

2

3

15. Each defendant is, and at all times herein relevant was, the agent, employee, or

4 representative of each other defendant, in doing the acts or in omitting to act as alleged in this

5 compliant, was acting within the course and scope of his or her actual or apparent authority pursuant to

6 such agency; or the alleged acts or omissions of each defendant as agent were subsequently ratified and

7 adopted by each defendant as principal.

8

9

IV.

10

FACTS

11

12

16. Defendants Wayne Wacker and Eileen Wacker, acting individually and in

13 concert with others, directly and through agents, engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination

14 against families with children, including Plaintiffs, on account of familial status in the operation of the

15 Villa Serrano Apartments.

16

17

17. Defendants Wayne Wacker and Eileen Wacker ordered their onsite managers to

18 locate tenants with children to live in the downstairs units of the complex if there were units available

19 both upstairs and downstairs. If there was only an upstairs unit vacant and a family with children

20 applied for the unit, then the onsite manager was not permitted to rent the unit to the family with

21 children without first informing defendants of the fact that a family with children had applied.

22 Defendants would then decide whether or not to rent to the family with children.

23

24

18. During the term of their ownership of the Villa Serrano Apartments, defendants

25 asked prospective tenants, including Plaintiff Lorena Lingenfelter, whether they had children, and, if

26 so, the ages of their children.

27

28

Case 2:06-cv-02334-LKK-DAD Document 1 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 6 of 25

1

19. Defendants, furthermore, subjected families with children to different treatment

2 from adult-only households. To wit, one tenant’s minor son was physically attacked by an adult tenant.

3 Thereafter, defendants evicted the family with children, but permitted the adult tenant to remain a 4 tenant. When the tenant complained about the unlawful treatment, Defendant Eileen Wacker retorted: 5 “There’s nothing to talk about.”

6

7

20. Defendants Eileen Wacker and Wayne Wacker, at all relevant times, were aware

8 of Plaintiff Shaun Johnson and Lorena Lingenfelter’s respective mental impairments and Lorena

9 Lingenfelter’s physical impairment.

10

11

21. On or about November 15, 2003, Plaintiffs Jesse Robidoux and Regina

12 Robidoux (formerly known as Regina Reichenberg) entered into a lease with Defendants Wayne

13 Wacker and Eileen Wacker for 5241 Marconi Ave., #11, Carmichael, CA 95608. The lease was

14 executed by Defendant Christine Wacker.

15

16

22. In or around December 2004, defendants posted a notice in the laundry facilities

17 at the Villa Serrano Apartments that stated that children were no longer permitted to play outside at the

18 complex.

19

20

23. On or about March 9, 2005, Plaintiff Randall Reichenberg Jr. (“Randy”) was

21 riding his bicycle at the Villa Serrano Apartments and one of his friends was playfully chasing him.

22 Plaintiff Regina Robidoux was watching her son from inside her apartment. When Randy’s friend 23 finally caught him, Randy yelled with excitement. Defendant Wayne Wacker immediately came 24 outside and told Randy not to yell. Mr. Wacker then went back indoors. The children continued to

25 play and when Mr. Wacker subsequently heard the children laughing, he came back outside and

26 pointed his finger at each child who was playing and stated, “You go home! You go home! You go 27 home!” Mrs. Robidoux thus came outdoors and told Mr. Wacker that Randy was not going to go 28 inside, for he had every right to be outside. Mr. Wacker then claimed that Randy was screaming. Mrs.

Case 2:06-cv-02334-LKK-DAD Document 1 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 7 of 25

1 Robidoux informed Mr. Wacker that she had been watching the children from inside her apartment and

2 that Randy had not yelled a second time. Mrs. Robidoux then told Mr. Wacker that she would instruct

3 her son not to yell. Mr. Wacker, clearly upset at Mrs. Robidoux’s actions, angrily replied, “I’m going 4 to evict you. I’m going to give you a 30-Day Notice, just you watch!” Mr. Wacker then left.

5

6

24. On or about March 10, 2005, Mrs. Robidoux called the Department of Fair

7 Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) to complain about the prior day’s incident involving Mr. Wacker. 8 Mrs. Robidoux left a message for DFEH to call her. Thereafter, Mrs. Robidoux went into the office at 9 the Villa Serrano Apartments and spoke with Defendant Eileen Wacker about the prior day’s incident

10 involving Mr. Wacker. After telling her what had happened, Mrs. Wacker told Mrs. Robidoux, “I’m so

11 sorry. I don’t know what’s wrong with my husband, he’s been acting weird lately. You are not going 12 to be evicted. Your tenancy here is in no jeopardy. He was completely out of line. I do apologize.” 13 Mrs. Robidoux thanked her for the apology and left. When Mrs. Robidoux returned home, DFEH had

14 left her a message. In light of Mrs. Wacker’s apology, Mrs. Robidoux elected not to go forward with a 15 complaint to DFEH.

16

17

25. On and after March 11, 2005, however, and continuing through on or about

18 August 6, 2005, Randy was told on multiple occasions by Defendants that he could not be outside 19 playing. On one occasion, Randy told his mother that “the lady told me to come inside.” In response, 20 Mrs. Robidoux told Randy that he could play, for she was his mom, and if the lady told him again to

21 have the lady come speak to her. “No mommy, she scares me because she just watches me.”

22

23

26. On and after March 11, 2005, Randy started to refuse to go outside and play and

24 on several occasions stated, “I don’t want to [go outside and play]; they are going to tell me to come

25 inside.”

26

27

27. On or about May 25, 2005, Defendants gave all tenants a notice that declared:

28 “Effective immediately, all children under 18 must be accompanied by a parent or responsible adult

Case 2:06-cv-02334-LKK-DAD Document 1 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 8 of 25

1 when playing on property.” The notice further declared: “Violation to these [sic] rule will result in

2 warning notices and if the issue is not resolved after two warnings you will be given notice to terminate

3 your lease.”

4

5

28. On or about June 2, 2005, Plaintiff Regina Robidoux went to the onsite manager

6 to tell her that summer was coming, her son would be getting out of school soon, and that she felt that

7 he should be able to ride his bike at the property as he had always been able to previously. “That’s 8 what the park is for,” responded the onsite manger, “and you need to take him to the park to do that.” 9 Mrs. Robidoux responded, “I’m not going to take him to a park when he’s able to ride here.” Mrs.

10 Robidoux had just had a baby and did not want to take the newborn into the Summer heat. “Then you

11 need to find another place to live,” replied the onsite manager. Mrs. Robidoux then informed the 12 onsite manager that she had been in contact with DFEH and a lawyer and they had told her that the rule 13 was unlawful. The onsite manager informed Mrs. Robidoux that Mrs. Wacker already had spoken with

14 a lawyer who informed her that the rule was lawful. When Mrs. Wacker was informed that Mrs. 15 Robidoux had contacted DFEH, Mrs. Wacker informed the onsite, resident manager, “She’s out of 16 here. I’m putting her on notice.”

17

18

29. On or about June 6, 2005, Randy was outside riding his bicycle and Mrs.

19 Wacker asked him, “Is your mom out here?” Mrs. Robidoux, who was outside, waved at her to let her

20 know that she was present. Mrs. Wacker then walked over to Mrs. Robidoux and discussed the

21 conversation that Mrs. Robidoux had had with the onsite manager on or about June 2, 2005. Mrs.

22 Wacker and Mrs. Robidoux disagreed over the legality of the new rule prohibiting bicycle riding. Mrs. 23 Wacker went on to say that the new rule had resulted from another child’s behavior and that it had been 24 implemented for safety’s sake. Before leaving, Mrs. Wacker stated, “If more than two bikes are being

25 ridden at one time they can’t ride bikes.”

26

27

30. On June 7, 2005, Defendants served upon Plaintiffs Jesse Robidoux and Regina

28 Robidoux a Sixty Day Notice of Termination of Tenancy.

Case 2:06-cv-02334-LKK-DAD Document 1 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 9 of 25

1

31. On or about July 20, 2005, Plaintiff Lorena Lingenfelter entered into a lease with

2 Defendants Wayne Wacker and Eileen Wacker for 5241 Marconi Ave., #22, Carmichael, CA 95608.

3 At or around the time that Ms. Lingenfelter entered into the lease, she made Defendants Wayne 4 Wacker and Eileen Wacker aware of the fact that she had voluntarily sought the assistance of the 5 Dependency Court and Child Protective Services in hopes of obtaining full custody of her children.

6

7

32. In or around July 2005, defendants sent out a notice to the tenants at the complex

8 stating that children were no longer permitted to play in the parking lot area. The parking lot area

9 comprises the majority of the common area of the complex and was used by children for riding

10 bicycles, playing with balls, among other things. Plaintiff Regina Robidoux, whose son was affected

11 by the rule, thereafter approached the onsite manager and complained that the rule violated applicable 12 fair housing laws and that she was going to contact the Department of Fair Employment and Housing. 13 “Do what you have to do, but you still have to take your kids to the park if they want to play,” the

14 onsite manger replied.

15

16

33. On or about July 21, 2005, Defendants gave all tenants a notice that declared,

17 viz: “All children under 18 must be accompanied by a parent or responsible adult when playing on

18 property.” The notice further declared: “Violation to these rules will result in warning notices and if 19 the issue is not resolved after two warnings you will be given notice to terminate your lease.”

20

21

34. Defendants forbid children at the Villa Serrano Apartments from playing in front

22 of their apartments in the common areas. The common areas are comprised of grass and sidewalks. 23 Children were repeatedly told by Defendant Eileen Wacker: “Shut up and get in your house!”

24

25

35. The resident managers of the Villa Serrano Apartments treated families with

26 children differently from adults-only households. For starters, the resident managers were rude toward 27 children, whereas they did not treat adults rudely. Next, adults were permitted to be in the common 28 areas, and do such things as smoke cigarettes, but children were forbidden from being in the common

Case 2:06-cv-02334-LKK-DAD Document 1 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 10 of 25

1 areas and were yelled at by the resident managers whenever children were found in the common areas.

2

3

36. In September 2005, Plaintiff Shaun Johnson ceased working as a part-time,

4 onsite manager of the Villa Serrano Apartments.

5

6

37. In or around October 4, 2005, plaintiffs’ lawyer sent a letter to the tenants at the

7 Villa Serrano Apartments asking them to contact him if they had any knowledge of housing 8 discrimination. After the letters arrived at the complex, Defendant Eileen Wacker went door-to-door 9 requesting that the tenants turn over the letters to her. Defendant Eileen Wacker was able to collect a

10 stack of letters from the tenants. Plaintiff Lorena Lingenfelter refused to turn over her letter to

11 Defendant Eileen Wacker.

12

13

38. In or around October 2005, Plaintiff Lorena Lingenfelter was quietly listening to

14 music on her laptop computer inside of her apartment when Defendant Eileen Wacker came to her door 15 and told her: “Turn down your music, and turn down the baby!” It was around 5 p.m.

16

17

39. In or around October 2005, Defendant Eileen Wacker stated to Plaintiff Lorena

18 Lingenfelter “I know you leave [your child] in the walker 24/7.”

19

20

40. In or around November 2005, Plaintiff Shaun Johnson made Plaintiff Lorena

21 Lingenfelter aware of her rights under the fair housing laws. Defendants, shortly thereafter, became

22 aware of this fact.

23

24

41. On or about November 1, 2005, Defendant Eileen Wacker gave Plaintiff Lorena

25 Lingenfelter a notice, which stated, among other things: “If your guest ever speak to me in the manner

26 as the one today, you will be on notice to move.” The notice continued, “If you don’t like the rules feel 27 free to give me your 30 day notice to move any time.” In short, the father of Ms. Lingenfelter’s 28 children, Mike Burk, had come to visit their children on or about November 1, 2005, and he had asked

Case 2:06-cv-02334-LKK-DAD Document 1 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 11 of 25

1 Defendant Eileen Wacker to stop harassing his family. During their conversation Defendant Eileen

2 Wacker told Mr. Burk that he was not allowed to park on the premises. Mr. Burk informed Defendant

3 Eileen Wacker that he would not be able to see his children if that were the case, for he is disabled and 4 unable to walk that far. Defendant Eileen Wacker coldly responded, “That’s your problem; I don’t 5 care.” At the time that Defendant Eileen Wacker gave the notice to Ms. Lingenfelter, she stated to Ms.

6 Lingenfelter, “If you don’t like the rules, then move out.”

7

8

42. On or about November 2, 2005, Defendant Eileen Wacker sat in her van

9 outside of Plaintiff Lorena Lingenfelter’s apartment and peered in at Plaintiff Lorena Lingenfelter.

10 Defendant Eileen Wacker then got out of her van and mockingly stated to Plaintiff Lorena

11 Lingenfelter: “You’re crazy. The only disability you have is mental!” It was around 6:30-7 p.m. 12 Around 8 p.m., Defendant Eileen Wacker called the police on Plaintiff Lorena Lingenfelter falsely 13 reporting that Ms. Lingenfelter had left her children alone. Later that evening, Defendant Eileen

14 Wacker told Plaintiff Lorena Lingenfelter to “silence your baby,” for Ms. Lingenfelter’s baby was 15 crying.

16

17

43. On or about November 3, 2005, an anonymous handwritten note was left in

18 Plaintiff Lorena Lingenfelter’s path, which stated, “Look up & smile for the camera! Watch what your 19 [sic] doing because there’s more than one.”

20

21

44. On or about November 4, 2005, Defendant Eileen Wacker was parked in the

22 Villa Serrano Apartments parking lot when Plaintiff Lorena Lingenfelter arrived home. As Ms. 23 Lingenfelter began to get out of her car, Defendant Eileen Wacker began revving her engine and 24 threatened to run over Ms. Lingenfelter. Defendant Eileen Wacker then caused her vehicle to lurch

25 forward toward Ms. Lingenfelter.

26

27

45. On November 5, 2005, Defendants called Express Towing and falsely reported

28 that Plaintiff Lorena Lingenfelter’s car was illegally parked at the Villa Serrano Apartments. As such,

Case 2:06-cv-02334-LKK-DAD Document 1 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 12 of 25

1 Express Towing sent a tow truck to the Villa Serrano Apartments and hooked up Ms. Lingenfelter’s car

2 and were about to tow it away when Ms. Lingenfelter was awakened by a neighbor and looked out her

3 window. It was around 2 a.m. When Ms. Lingenfelter saw the tow truck driver trying to tow her car, 4 she ran outside to ask what he was doing. The tow truck driver informed her that he had been told by 5 Defendants that the car was illegally parked. Ms. Lingenfelter proved to the tow truck driver that she

6 was a resident of the complex, but the tow truck driver refused to release her car until she paid a $75

7 drop fee. Ms. Lingenfelter paid the $75 and her car was dropped.

8

9

46. On November 23, 2005, Defendants put a notice on Plaintiff Lorena

10 Lingenfelter’s car claiming that “This is tenant parking only,” and notifying her that her failure to

11 comply “could result in having your vehicle towed or booted.”

12

13

47. On or about December 1, 2005, Defendants refused to accept Plaintiff Lorena

14 Lingenfelter’s timely payment of rent, stating, “We are not accepting rent from you.” Consequently,

15 Plaintiff Shaun Johnson accompanied Plaintiff Lorena Lingenfelter to the onsite, manager’s office.

16 The onsite manager, Paul, still refused to accept Ms. Lingenfelter’s rent, closed the office door in their

17 faces, and then proceeded to telephone Defendants Eileen Wacker and Wayne Wacker. One hour later,

18 Defendants placed a Thirty Day Notice of Termination on Ms. Lingenfelter’s door.

19

20

48. On or after December 2, 2005, Defendant Eileen Wacker threatened to steal

21 Plaintiff Lorena Lingenfelter’s Teacup Pomeranian. Thereafter, on December 26, 2005, Ms.

22 Lingenfelter’s Teacup Pomeranian was stolen. The following day, December 27, 2005, Defendants 23 Eileen Wacker and Wayne Wacker left Defendant Christine Wacker’s residence at the Villa Serrano 24 Apartments with a dog cage. Thereafter, Defendant Wayne Wacker was shocked to see Plaintiff

25 Lorena Lingenfelter coming to the onsite office, as such, he refused to answer the door.

26

27

49. On or about December 28, 2005, Defendants placed another Thirty Day Notice

28 of Termination on Ms. Lingenfelter’s door.

Case 2:06-cv-02334-LKK-DAD Document 1 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 13 of 25

1

50. On or about January 4, 2006, Defendants Christine Wacker and Brian

2 Rosengren parked immediately outside of Plaintiff Lorena Lingenfelter’s apartment and intentionally

3 triggered their car alarm on approximately ten separate occasions. When Defendants Christine Wacker 4 and Brian Rosengren finally left, Plaintiff Lorena Lingenfelter went out to her car. Within a very short 5 time, Defendants Christine Wacker and Brian Rosengren arrived back at the Villa Serrano Apartments

6 and intentionally parked immediately adjacent to Ms. Lingenfelter’s car, so that she was pinned inside

7 of her car and could not get out. When Ms. Lingenfelter tried to get out of her car, she bumped 8 Defendant Brian Rosengren’s mirror. Whereupon, Defendant Christine Wacker yelled, “Brian, she hit 9 the car!” Defendants Christine Wacker and Brian Rosengren proceeded to hop out of their vehicle and

10 began kicking and hitting Ms. Lingenfelter’s vehicle. Defendant Brian Rosengren then stated to Ms.

11 Lingenfelter, “Don’t think you’re going to get out. You are not going anywhere.” Ms. Lingenfelter 12 nevertheless attempted to get out of the car and when she was able to she was angry and jumped on 13 Defendant Brian Rosengren’s vehicle. Defendant Brian Rosengren then pulled Ms. Lingenfelter off of

14 his vehicle and threw her to the ground.

15

16

51. In or around January 2006, Defendant Christine Wacker sat in her car

17 immediately outside of Plaintiff Lorena Lingenfelter’s apartment and repeatedly revved her engine and

18 flashed her lights into Ms. Lingenfelter’s apartment. Ms. Lingenfelter’s daughter, Hannah Burk, who 19 was two years old at the time was so frightened by Defendant Christine Wacker’s actions that she 20 asked her mom, “Are they going to drive into our window?”

21

22

52. On January 14, 2006, Plaintiff Lorena Lingenfelter’s automobile was vandalized

23 while it was parked at the Villa Serrano Apartments.

24

25

53. On January 23, 2006, Defendant Eileen Wacker sent a letter to Plaintiff Lorena

26 Lingenfelter denying her request that Defendants spray her apartment for fleas. Ms. Lingenfelter’s 27 children were being bitten by fleas. Although Defendants paid for Terminex to spray for fleas in other 28 apartments, Defendants refused to spray Ms. Lingenfelter’s apartment. Thereafter, Ms. Lingenfelter

Case 2:06-cv-02334-LKK-DAD Document 1 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 14 of 25

1 talked to Defendant Wayne Wacker about the denial and he said, “Why don’t you just move?” In

2 response, Ms. Lingenfelter stated, “Don’t you think we have the right to live in a place without fleas?”

3 “Just move,” Defendant Wayne Wacker retorted.

4

5

54. During Plaintiff Lorena Lingenfelter’s residency at the Villa Serrano

6 Apartments, Defendant Eileen Wacker verbally threatened Ms. Lingenfelter to “see you and your

7 children homeless” if she did not obey Mrs. Wacker. Defendant Eileen Wacker further told Ms. 8 Lingenfelter, “I’ll ruin you. You will be homeless!”

9

10

55. During Plaintiff Lorena Lingenfelter’s residency at the Villa Serrano

11 Apartments, Defendant Eileen Wacker embarrassed and humiliated Ms. Lingenfelter by publicly and 12 loudly discussing Ms. Lingenfelter’s physical and mental disabilities.

13

14

56. In or around December 2005, Defendant Eileen Wacker told tenants at the

15 complex on several occasions that Plaintiff Shaun Johnson was “crazy,” “unsafe to be around,” “on

16 something,” and “on drugs.” On another occasion, in or around December 2005, Defendant Eileen

17 Wacker told a tenant that Plaintiff Shaun Johnson was “crazy and makes things up in her head.”

18

19

57. On or about December 21, 2005, Defendant Eileen Wacker telephoned Plaintiff

20 Shaun Johnson at or around 11 p.m. and falsely claimed that she was being too loud. During the

21 conversation, Mrs. Wacker told Ms. Johnson that she had to crate her dog, which is smaller than a cat

22 and was given to Ms. Johnson by Mrs. Wacker, or else she would be given a 30-Day Notice to 23 Terminate her Tenancy.

24

25

58. On or about January 12, 2006, Plaintiff Shaun Johnson sent a letter to Defendant

26 Eileen Wacker complaining that Defendants were violating her rights under Civil Code §3304. Shortly 27 thereafter, Defendants served upon Ms. Johnson a Ninety Day Notice to Terminate her Tenancy.

28

Case 2:06-cv-02334-LKK-DAD Document 1 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 15 of 25

1

59. On or about January 22, 2006, Plaintiff Shaun Johnson filed a complaint with

2 the Human Rights/Fair Housing Commission of the City and County of Sacramento.

3

4

60. On or about January 23, 2006, Defendants became aware that Plaintiff Shaun

5 Johnson filed a complaint with Human Rights/Fair Housing Commission of the City and County of

6 Sacramento.

7

8

61. On or about January 23, 2006, Defendants caused to be served on Plaintiff

9 Shaun Johnson a Ninety Day Notice of Termination of Tenancy and a Warning Notice, which stated,

10 among other things, “Please stop harassing other tenants trying to pull them into some kind of 11 Harassment Suite [sic], they’ve made it clear they are happy and don’t want to be harassed by you and 12 they surely don’t want your phone number so leave the rest of them alone. All you’re doing is giving 13 me cause to put you out a lot sooner than the 90 days. BE ADVISED that the above-described conduct

14 can henceforth constitute a basis for termination of occupancy.”

15

16

62. In or around January 2005, Defendants placed three surveillance cameras at the

17 Villa Serrano Apartments and pointed them in the direction of Plaintiff Shaun Johnson’s apartment.

18

19

63. In or around February 2006, Defendant Eileen Wacker told Matthew Johnson, a

20 tenant at the Villa Serrano Apartments, that Plaintiff Shaun Johnson was “on drugs and crazy.”

21

22

64. On or about February 8, 2006, Defendant Eileen Wacker served a bogus

23 Warning Notice on Plaintiff Shaun Johnson claiming, viz, that her dog was barking excessively.

24

25

65. On or about January 13, 2006, the onsite manager, Paul, placed a large worm on

26 Plaintiff Shaun Johnson’s doorstep. Consequently, Ms. Johnson telephoned Defendant Eileen Wacker 27 and asked her to remove the worm from her doorstep. Shortly thereafter, during a conversation with 28 the onsite manager, Paul, Ms. Johnson informed him that she knew that he had placed the worm on her

Case 2:06-cv-02334-LKK-DAD Document 1 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 16 of 25

1 doorstep. “How did you know?” he surprisingly responded. When another tenant later inquired of the 2 onsite manager, Paul, about the matter, he denied having placed the worm on Ms. Johnson’s doorstep 3 and stated, “We think it is all in her head.”

4

5

66. On or about December 1, 2005, Defendant Eileen Wacker screamed obscenities

6

at

7 Plaintiff Shaun Johnson and called her, among other things, “psycho.”

8

9

V.

10

INJURIES

11

12

67. By reason of defendants' unlawful acts and practices, plaintiffs have suffered

13 loss of important housing opportunities, violation of their civil rights, deprivation of the full use and

14 enjoyment of their tenancy, wrongful eviction, and severe emotional distress and physical injury,

15 humiliation and mental anguish, including bodily injury such as stomach aches; head aches; sleep loss

16 and sleeping too much; appetite loss, feelings of depression, discouragement, anger, and nervousness;

17 and reliving the experience; and other special and general damages according to proof. Accordingly,

18 plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory damages.

19

20

68. In doing the acts of which plaintiffs complain, defendants and their agents and

21 employees intentionally or recklessly violated plaintiffs' civil rights. Accordingly, all plaintiffs are

22 entitled to punitive damages.

23

24

69. There now exists an actual controversy between the parties regarding defendants'

25 duties under the federal and state fair housing laws. Accordingly, all plaintiffs are entitled to

26 declaratory relief.

27

28

Case 2:06-cv-02334-LKK-DAD Document 1 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 17 of 25

1

70. Unless enjoined, defendants will continue to engage in the unlawful acts and the

2 pattern or practice of discrimination described above.

3

4

VI.

5

FIRST CLAIM

6

(Fair Housing Act)

7

(Against Wacker Family Trust, Wayne Wacker, Eileen Wacker, and Christine Wacker,

8

individually and doing business as Villa Serrano Apartments)

9

10

71. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 70 of the

11 complaint herein.

12

13

72. Defendants have injured plaintiffs in violation of the federal Fair Housing Act by

14 committing the following discriminatory housing practices:

15

A. Discriminating in the terms, conditions, and privileges of the rental of a dwelling

16 because of familial status and/or a handicap, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection

17 therewith, because of familial status and/or a handicap in violation of 42 U.S.C. §3604(b) and/or 42

18 U.S.C. §3604(f)(2);

19

B. Making, printing, or publishing notices, statements, or advertisements, with

20 respect to the rental of a dwelling that indicates a preference, limitation, or discrimination based on

21 familial status and/or disability, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or

22 discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. §3604(c);

23

C. Coercing, intimidating, threatening, retaliating, or interfering with persons in

24 their exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of their having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of

25 their having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted by

26 or protected by the Fair Housing Act in violation of 42 U.S.C. §3617.

27

28

Case 2:06-cv-02334-LKK-DAD Document 1 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 18 of 25

1

SECOND CLAIM

2

(California Fair Employment and Housing Act)

3

(Against Wacker Family Trust, Wayne Wacker, Eileen Wacker, and Christine Wacker,

4

individually and doing business as Villa Serrano Apartments)

5

6

73. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 72 of the

7 complaint herein.

8

9

74. Defendants have injured plaintiffs in violation of the California Fair

10 Employment and Housing Act by committing the following discriminatory housing practices:

11

A. Discriminating in the terms, conditions, and privileges of the rental of a dwelling

12 because of familial status and/or disability in violation of California Government Code §§12955(a) and

13 (d);

14

B. Making, or causing to be made, any written or oral inquiry concerning the

15 familial status of any person seeking to rent or lease any housing accommodation in violation of

16 California Government Code §12955(b);

17

C. Making, printing, or publishing notices, statements, or advertisements, with

18 respect to the rental of a dwelling that indicates a preference, limitation, or discrimination based on

19 familial status and/or disability, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or

20 discrimination in violation of California Government Code §12955(c);

21

D. Expressing a preference for or limitation on a renter because of familial status

22 and/or disability in violation of California Government Code §12955(d);

23

E. Harassing, evicting, or otherwise discriminating against any person in the rental

24 of housing accommodations where the dominant purpose is retaliation against a person who, among

25 other things, has opposed practices unlawful under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, in violation

26 of California Government Code §12955(f);

27

F. Aiding, abetting, inciting, compelling, or coercing the doing of any of the acts

28 declared unlawful in the Fair Employment and Housing Act, in violation of California Government

Case 2:06-cv-02334-LKK-DAD Document 1 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 19 of 25

1 Code §12955(g); and

2

G. Coercing, threatening, intimidating, or interfering with persons in their

3 enjoyment of, or on account of that person having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of that person

4 having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or

5 protected by California Government Code §12955 or 12955.1 in violation of California Government

6 Code §12955.7.

7

8

THIRD CLAIM

9

(California Unruh Civil Rights Act)

10

(Against Wacker Family Trust, Wayne Wacker, and Eileen Wacker, individually and doing

11

business as Villa Serrano Apartments)

12

13

75. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 74 of the

14 complaint herein.

15

16

76. Defendants injured the plaintiffs in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act,

17 California Civil Code §51 et seq. by discriminating against them and families with children in the

18 operation of the Villa Serrano Apartments, a business establishment, because of familial status and/or

19 disability.

20

21

77. Pursuant to the Unruh Civil Rights Act, plaintiffs are entitled to statutory

22 damages, among other remedies, of up to three times their actual damages as determined by the trier of

23 fact, but no less than $4,000.00 for each violation by each defendants.

24

25

26

27

28

Case 2:06-cv-02334-LKK-DAD Document 1 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 20 of 25

1

FOURTH CLAIM

2

(Unfair Business Practices)

3

(Against Wacker Family Trust, Wayne Wacker, and Eileen Wacker, individually and doing

4

business as Villa Serrano Apartments)

5

6

78. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 77 of the

7 complaint herein.

8

9

79. In acting as herein alleged, defendants have engaged in a pattern or practice of

10 unlawful discrimination in the operation of the Villa Serrano Apartments, a business establishment,

11 and therefore have engaged in acts of unfair competition as the same is defined in California Business

12 & Professions Code §17204.

13

14

FIFTH CLAIM

15

(Negligence)

16 (As Against Defendants Wacker Family Trust, Wayne Wacker, and Eileen Wacker, individually

17

and doing business as Villa Serrano Apartments)

18

19

80. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 79 of the

20 complaint herein.

21

22

81. Defendants owed plaintiffs a duty to operate the Villa Serrano Apartments in a

23 manner that was free from unlawful discrimination, and to hire, train, supervise, and discipline their

24 employees and themselves to fulfill that duty. Defendants negligently violated that duty by

25 discriminating against families with children on account of their familial status. Defendants' violation

26 of that duty was the result of negligence, including, but not limited to:

27

A. Defendants' negligent failure to hire persons who were familiar with the

28 requirements of state and federal fair housing laws;

Case 2:06-cv-02334-LKK-DAD Document 1 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 21 of 25

1

B. Defendants' negligent failure to train their employees and themselves regarding

2 the requirements of state and federal fair housing laws;

3

C. Defendants' negligent failure to supervise their employees regarding compliance

4 with the requirements of state and federal fair housing laws; and

5

D. Defendants' negligent failure to discipline or terminate employees who failed to

6 comply with the requirements of state and federal fair housing laws.

7

8

82. As a legal result of defendants' negligent conduct, the plaintiffs have suffered

9 loss of an important housing opportunity, violation of their civil rights, deprivation of the full use and

10 enjoyment of their tenancy, invasion of the private right of occupancy, wrongful eviction, and bodily

11 injury, including severe humiliation, physical and emotional distress.

12

13

SIXTH CLAIM

14

(Negligence)

15

(Against Defendants Christine Wacker and Brian Rosengren)

16

17

83. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 82 of the

18 complaint herein.

19

20

84. Defendants Christine Wacker and Brian Rosengren were negligent and their

21 negligence was the proximate cause of injuries and damages to Plaintiff Lorena Lingenfelter, including,

22 but not limited to, over $3,000 of damages to Ms. Lingenfelter’s automobile.

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 2:06-cv-02334-LKK-DAD Document 1 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 22 of 25

1

SEVENTH CLAIM

2

(Assault)

3

(Against Defendants Christine Wacker and Brian Rosengren)

4

5

85. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 84 of the

6 complaint herein.

7

8

86. Defendants Christine Wacker and Brian Rosengren acted, intending to cause

9 harmful or offensive contact to Plaintiff Lorena Lingenfelter;
10

11
87. Plaintiff Lorena Lingenfelter reasonably believed that she was about to be
12
13 touched in a harmful or an offensive manner;

14

15
88. Plaintiff Lorena Lingenfelter did not consent to Defendants Christine Wacker
16
and Brian Rosengren’s conduct;
17

18

19

89. Plaintiff Lorena Lingenfelter was harmed;

20

21
90. Defendants Christine Wacker and Brian Rosengren’s conduct was a substantial
22
factor in causing Plaintiff Lorena Lingenfelter’s harm.
23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 2:06-cv-02334-LKK-DAD Document 1 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 23 of 25

1

EIGHTH CLAIM

2

(Battery)

3
(As Against Defendants Christine Wacker and Brian Rosengren)
4

5

6

91. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 90 of the

7 complaint herein.
8
92. On or about January 4, 2006, Defendants Christine Wacker and Brian
9
Rosengren intentionally did an act which resulted in a harmful or offensive contact with Plaintiff
10
Lorena Lingenfelter’s person;
11

12

13

93. Plaintiff Lorena Lingenfelter did not consent to the contact;

14

15
94. The harmful or offensive contact caused injury, damage, loss or harm to the
16
17 Plaintiff Lorena Lingenfelter.

18

19

NINTH CLAIM

20
(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)
21
(Against Defendants Christine Wacker and Brian Rosengren)
22

23

24

95. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 94 of the

25 complaint herein.
26

27
96. Defendants Christine Wacker and Brian Rosengren engaged in extreme and
28
outrageous conduct with the intent of causing, or with reckless disregard of the probability of causing,

Case 2:06-cv-02334-LKK-DAD Document 1 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 24 of 25

1 emotional distress.
2

3
97. Plaintiff Lorena Lingenfelter suffered severe or extreme emotional distress,
4
which was proximately caused by the actions of defendants Christine Wacker and Brian Rosengren.
5

6

7

VII.

8
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
9

10
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for entry of judgment against defendants that:
11

12

13

1. Awards compensatory and punitive damages according to proof;

14
2. Declares that defendants have violated the provisions of the applicable federal and state

15
fair housing laws;
16

17

3. Enjoins all unlawful practices complained about herein and imposes affirmative

18 injunctive relief requiring defendants, their partners, agents, employees, assignees, and all persons

19 acting in concert or participating with them, to take affirmative action to provide equal housing
20
opportunities to all tenants and prospective tenants regardless of familial status;
21
4. Awards up to three times the amount of actual damages for each individual plaintiff
22
23 against each defendant pursuant to the Unruh Civil Rights Act, but no less than $4,000.00 for each

24 violation by each defendant;

25

5. Awards pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest as provided for by law;

26
6. Awards costs of suit herein incurred, including reasonable attorneys' fees; and
27
7. Awards all such other and further relief as the court may deem proper.
28

Case 2:06-cv-02334-LKK-DAD Document 1 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 25 of 25

1 Dated: October 23, 2006
2

LAW OFFICES OF STUART E. FAGAN

3

4

By: /s/ Stuart E. Fagan

Stuart E. Fagan

5

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

6

7

VIII.

8
JURY DEMAND
9

10
Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiffs hereby request a
11
12 trial by jury.

13

14
Dated: October 23, 2006
15

LAW OFFICES OF STUART E. FAGAN

16

17
By: /s/ Stuart E. Fagan

18

Stuart E. Fagan

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 
 Case 2:06-cv-02334-LKK-DAD Document 102 Filed 06/07/11 Page 1 of 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9 JESSE ROBIDOUX; REGINA
10 ROBIDOUX; RANDALL REICHEBERG, JR. and JESSE J.
11 ROBIDOUX, JR., minors by and through their GUARDIAN AD
12 LITEM, REGINA ROBIDOUX; SHAUN JOHNSON; LORENA LINGENFELTER;
13 HANNAH BURK and MICHAEL BURK, minors by and through their
14 GUARDIAN AD LITEM, LORENA LINGENFELTER, individuals,
15

NO. CIV.S-06-2334 LKK/DAD

16

Plaintiffs,

17

v.

O R D E R

18 WACKER FAMILY TRUST; WAYNE

WACKER, EILEEN WACKER and

19 CHRISTINE WACKER, individually

and doing business as VILLA

20 SERRANO APARTMENTS; BRIAN

ROSENGREN,

21

Defendants.

22

/

23

On April 21, 2011, the Ninth Circuit issued a mandate in the

24 above-referenced matter. The mandate directed the district court

25 to determine whether the net recovery of the four minor plaintiffs

26 under the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable as to each

1

Case 2:06-cv-02334-LKK-DAD Document 102 Filed 06/07/11 Page 2 of 2

1 minor plaintiff. Accordingly, the court ORDERS plaintiffs to file

2 a new proposed settlement within fourteen (14) days of the issuance

3 of this order, for the court’s review under the standard set out

4 by the Ninth Circuit. Any opposition or statement of non-opposition

5 shall be filed not later than ten (10) days thereafter.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

DATED: June 6, 2011.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

 
 Case 2:06-cv-02334-LKK-DAD Document 108 Filed 07/28/11 Page 1 of 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9 JESSE ROBIDOUX; REGINA
10 ROBIDOUX; RANDALL REICHEBERG, JR. and JESSE J.
11 ROBIDOUX, JR., minors by and through their GUARDIAN AD
12 LITEM, REGINA ROBIDOUX; SHAUN JOHNSON; LORENA LINGENFELTER;
13 HANNAH BURK and MICHAEL BURK, minors by and through their
14 GUARDIAN AD LITEM, LORENA LINGENFELTER, individuals,
15

NO. CIV.S-06-2334 LKK/DAD

16

Plaintiffs,

17

v.

O R D E R

18 WACKER FAMILY TRUST; WAYNE

WACKER, EILEEN WACKER and

19 CHRISTINE WACKER, individually

and doing business as VILLA

20 SERRANO APARTMENTS; BRIAN

ROSENGREN,

21

Defendants.

22

/

23

Currently before the court is plaintiffs’ motion to approve

24 minors’ compromises. On May 29, 2009, the court “appprove[d] the

25 compromise of the minors’ claims in all respects except” the

26 percentage of the total settlement award devoted to attorneys’

1

Case 2:06-cv-02334-LKK-DAD Document 108 Filed 07/28/11 Page 2 of 2

1 fees. On March 30, 2011, a panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed this

2 court’s partial denial of the motion to approve the minors’

3 compromise and “remand[ed] with instructions for the district court

4 to determine whether the net recovery of the four minor plaintiffs

5 under the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable as to each

6 minor plaintiff.” The court, however, already determined that the

7 proposed settlement is fair and reasonable as to the awards to the

8 minor plaintiffs when it approved their settlements in May 2009.

9

For the foregoing reasons, the court orders as follows:

10

(1) Plaintiffs’ motion to approve the minors’ compromises

11

(Doc. No. 103) is GRANTED.

12

(2) Hearing on plaintiffs’ motion to approve the minors’

13

compromises, currently set for August 1, 2011, is

14

VACATED.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

DATED: July 28, 2011.

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

 
 Case 2:06-cv-02334-LKK-DAD Document 104 Filed 06/16/11 Page 1 of 11

1 LAW OFFICES OF STUART E. FAGAN STUART E. FAGAN, State Bar No. 152732
2 P.O. Box 503741 San Diego, California 92150-3741
3 Telephone: (858) 220-9601 Facsimile: (858) 676-5339
4 Email: fairhousinglawyer@sbcglobal.net
5 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 JESSE ROBIDOUX; REGINA

)

ROBIDOUX; R.R. and J.R., minors, by and )

12 through their GUARDIAN AD LITEM, )

REGINA ROBIDOUX; SHAUN

)

13 JOHNSON; LORENA LINGENFELTER; )

H.B. and M.B, minors, by and through their )

14 GUARDIAN AD LITEM, LORENA

)

LINGENFELTER, individuals,

)

15

)

Plaintiffs,

)

16

)

v.

)

17

)

WACKER FAMILY TRUST; WAYNE )

18 WACKER, EILEEN WACKER, and

)

CHRISTINE WACKER, individually and )

19 doing business as VILLA SERRANO

)

APARTMENTS; BRIAN ROSENGREN, )

20

)

)

21

Defendants.

)

____________________________________ )

22

No. 2:06-CV-02334-LKK-DAD

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF GUARDIANS AD LITEM TO APPROVE MINORS’ COMPROMISES ___________________________

Judge: Courtroom: Date: Time: Trial:

Lawrence K. Karlton 4 August 1, 2011 10 a.m. December 1, 2009

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 2:06-cv-02334-LKK-DAD Document 104 Filed 06/16/11 Page 2 of 11

I.
1
INTRODUCTION
2

3
Plaintiffs/Guardians Ad Litem Regina Robidoux and Lorena Lingenfelter respectfully submit
4
the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of their motion to approve the
5
compromise of the claims of their respective children, plaintiffs R.R. and J.R.; and H.B. and M.B.
6
Briefly stated, after nearly three years of litigation and a second session of mediation before the
7
Honorable Raul Ramirez, Ret. Judge, all plaintiffs entered into a legally enforceable settlement
8
agreement with the defendants to settle alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §3601 et
9
seq., and related federal and state laws.
10

11
As proposed, R.R., shall receive $10,833.34, and his younger brother, J.R.., shall receive
12
$2,500. Briefly stated, R.R. was five years old at the time of the alleged discriminatory treatment and
13
his play at the complex was impacted, whereas, his younger brother, J.R., was less than one year old at
14
that time and was too young to go outside to play. (Robidoux Dec. ¶131.) Neither child required any
15
medical or psychiatric treatment for the injuries they sustained. (Robidoux Dec. ¶13.) What is more,
16
neither child (fortunately) shows any signs of ongoing stress. (Robidoux Dec. ¶13.)
17

18
Meanwhile, H.B. shall receive $10,833.34, and her younger brother, M.B. shall receive $2,500.
19
H.B. was three years old at the time of the alleged discriminatory treatment, while her younger brother,
20
M.B., was less than one year old at that time. Neither child required any medical or psychiatric
21
treatment for the injuries they sustained. (Lingenfelter Dec. ¶23.) What is more, neither shows any
22
signs of ongoing stress. (Lingenfelter Dec. ¶23.)
23

24

25

26

1Unless otherwise noted, references to declarations herein are to those declarations that

were filed on or about April 21, 2009 in conjunction with the original motion to approve the 27 minors’ compromises. Plaintiffs hereby request that the Court take judicial notice of said

28 declarations.

1

Case 2:06-cv-02334-LKK-DAD Document 104 Filed 06/16/11 Page 3 of 11

1

II.

2

STATEMENT OF FACTS

3

4

Plaintiffs are all former tenants of the Villa Serrano Apartments, which were owned by

5 defendants Wacker Family Trust, Eileen Wacker, and Wayne Wacker.2 Defendant Christine Wacker is

6 the daughter of defendant Eileen Wacker and served as an onsite manager part of the time that

7 plaintiffs resided at the complex. The facts pertaining to each family will be set forth below.

8
9 A.

Robidouxes.

10

11

On or about November 15, 2003, plaintiffs Jesse Robidoux and Regina Robidoux and their son,

12 R.R. (“R.R.”) moved into the Villa Serrano Apartments. At the time, R.R. was five years old. The

13 Robidouxes later had another son, J.R., in September 2004. (Robidoux Dec. ¶2.)

14

15

On or about March 9, 2005, R.R. was riding his bicycle at the Villa Serrano Apartments and

16 one of his friends was playfully chasing him. Plaintiff Regina Robidoux was watching her son from

17 inside her apartment. When R.R.’s friend finally caught him, R.R. yelled with excitement. Defendant

18 Wayne Wacker immediately came outside and told R.R. not to yell. Mr. Wacker then went back

19 indoors. The children continued to play and when Mr. Wacker subsequently heard the children

20 laughing, he came back outside and pointed his finger at each child who was playing and stated, “You

21 go home! You go home! You go home!” Upon hearing these statements, Mrs. Robidoux came

22 outdoors and told Mr. Wacker that R.R. was not going to go inside, for he had every right to be outside.

23 Mr. Wacker then claimed that R.R. was screaming. Mrs. Robidoux informed Mr. Wacker that she had

24 been watching the children from inside her apartment and that R.R. had not yelled a second time. Mrs.

25 Robidoux then told Mr. Wacker that she would tell her son not to yell. Mr. Wacker, clearly upset at

26 Mrs. Robidoux’s actions, angrily replied, “I’m going to evict you. I’m going to give you a 30-Day

27

28

2The Wackers sold the Villa Serrano Apartments during the course of the litigation.

2

Case 2:06-cv-02334-LKK-DAD Document 104 Filed 06/16/11 Page 4 of 11

1 Notice, just you watch!” Mr. Wacker then left. (Robidoux Dec. ¶3.)

2

3

The following day, Mrs. Robidoux called the Department of Fair Employment and Housing

4 (“DFEH”) to complain about the prior day’s incident involving Mr. Wacker. Mrs. Robidoux left a

5 message for DFEH to call her. Thereafter, Mrs. Robidoux went into the office at the Villa Serrano

6 Apartments and spoke with Mr. Wacker’s wife, Eileen Wacker, about the prior day’s incident. After

7 telling her what had happened, Mrs. Wacker told Mrs. Robidoux, “I’m so sorry. I don’t know what’s

8 wrong with my husband, he’s been acting weird lately. You are not going to be evicted. Your tenancy

9 here is in no jeopardy. He was completely out of line. I do apologize.” Mrs. Robidoux thanked her for

10 the apology and left. When Mrs. Robidoux returned home, DFEH had left her a message. In light of

11 Mrs. Wacker’s apology, Mrs. Robidoux elected not to go forward with a complaint to DFEH.

12 (Robidoux Dec. ¶4.)

13

14

On and after March 11, 2005, however, and continuing through on or about August 6, 2005,

15 R.R. was told on multiple occasions by defendants that he could not be outside playing. On one

16 occasion, R.R. told his mother that “the lady told me to come inside.” In response, Mrs. Robidoux told

17 R.R. that he could play, for she was his mom, and if the lady told him again to have the lady come

18 speak to her. R.R. was frightened, and stated, “No mommy, she scares me because she just watches

19 me.” (Robidoux Dec. ¶5.)

20

21

On and after March 11, 2005, R.R. started to refuse to go outside and play and on several

22 occasions stated, “I don’t want to [go outside and play]; they are going to tell me to come inside.”

23 (Robidoux Dec. ¶5.)

24

25

26

27

28 3

Case 2:06-cv-02334-LKK-DAD Document 104 Filed 06/16/11 Page 5 of 11

1

On or about May 25, 2005, defendants gave all tenants a notice that declared:

2

3

“Effective immediately, all children under 18 must be accompanied by

4

a parent or responsible adult when playing on property.” The notice

5

further declared: “Violation to these [sic] rule will result in warning

6

notices and if the issue is not resolved after two warnings you will be

7

given notice to terminate your lease.” (Robidoux Dec. ¶6.)

8

9

On or about June 2, 2005, plaintiff Regina Robidoux went to the onsite manager to inform her

10 that her son would be getting out of school for summer vacation soon, and that she felt that he should

11 be able to ride his bike at the property as he had always been able to previously. “That’s what the park

12 is for,” responded the onsite manger, “and you need to take him to the park to do that.” Mrs. Robidoux 13 responded, “I’m not going to take him to a park when he’s able to ride here.” Mrs. Robidoux had just 14 had a baby (plaintiff J.R.) and did not want to take the newborn into the summer heat. “Then you need 15 to find another place to live,” replied the onsite manager. Mrs. Robidoux then informed the onsite

16 manager that she had been in contact with DFEH and a lawyer and they had told her that the rule was 17 unlawful. The onsite manager informed Mrs. Robidoux that Mrs. Wacker already had spoken with a 18 lawyer who informed her that the rule was lawful. (Robidoux Dec. ¶7.)

19

20

Four days later, on or about June 6, 2005, R.R. was outside riding his bicycle and Mrs. Wacker

21 asked him, “Is your mom out here?” Mrs. Robidoux, who was outside, waved at her to let her know

22 that she was present. Mrs. Wacker then walked over to Mrs. Robidoux and discussed the conversation

23 that Mrs. Robidoux had had with the onsite manager on or about June 2, 2005. Mrs. Wacker and Mrs.

24 Robidoux disagreed over the legality of the new rule prohibiting bicycle riding. Mrs. Wacker went on 25 to say that the new rule had resulted from another child’s behavior and that it had been implemented 26 for safety’s sake. (Robidoux Dec. ¶8.)

27

28 4

Case 2:06-cv-02334-LKK-DAD Document 104 Filed 06/16/11 Page 6 of 11

1

The following day, on June 7, 2005, defendants served upon plaintiffs Jesse Robidoux and

2 Regina Robidoux a Sixty Day Notice of Termination of Tenancy. (Robidoux Dec. ¶9.)

3

4

In or around July 2005, defendants sent out a notice to the tenants at the complex stating that

5 children were no longer permitted to play in the parking lot area. The parking lot area comprises the 6 majority of the common area of the complex and was used by children for riding bicycles and laying 7 with balls, among other things. Plaintiff Regina Robidoux, whose son was affected by the rule,

8 thereafter approached the onsite manager and complained that the rule violated applicable fair housing

9 laws and that she was going to contact DFEH. “Do what you have to do, but you still have to take your 10 kids to the park if they want to play,” the onsite manger replied. (Robidoux Dec. ¶10.)

11

12 B. Lingenfelter/Burks

13

14

On or about July 20, 2005, plaintiff Lorena Lingenfelter moved into the Villa Serrano

15 Apartments. On the day following Ms. Lingenfelter’s moving into the complex, on July 21, 2005,

16 defendants gave her a copy of the above-referenced notice, which stated:

17

18

“All children under 18 must be accompanied by a parent or responsible

19

adult when playing on property.”

20

21

The notice further declared:

22

23

“Violation to these rules will result in warning notices and if the issue is

24

not resolved after two warnings you will be given notice to terminate

25

your lease.” (Lingenfelter Dec. ¶3.)

26

27

28 5

Case 2:06-cv-02334-LKK-DAD Document 104 Filed 06/16/11 Page 7 of 11

1

Shortly thereafter, Ms. Lingenfelter was quietly listening to music on her laptop computer

2 inside of her apartment when defendant Eileen Wacker came to her door and told her: “Turn down your

3 music, and turn down the baby!” It was around 5 p.m. Ms. Lingenfelter was shocked by the comment

4 and found it to be totally unprofessional. (Lingenfelter Dec. ¶6.)

5

6

In or around January 2006, defendant Christine Wacker sat in her car immediately outside of

7 Ms. Lingenfelter’s apartment and repeatedly revved her engine and flashed her lights into Ms.

8 Lingenfelter’s apartment. Plaintiff H.B., who was two years old at the time, was so frightened by

9 defendant Christine Wacker’s actions that she asked her mother, Lorena Lingenfelter, “Are they going 10 to drive into our window?” (Lingenfelter Dec. ¶17.)

11

12

III.

13

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

14
15 A.

THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT IS FAIR AND REASONABLE TO THE MINORS IN

16

LIGHT OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, EACH MINOR’S CLAIMS, AND TYPICAL

17

RECOVERIES BY MINOR PLAINTIFFS IN SIMILAR CASES

18

19

In light of the facts of the case, each minor’s claims, and typical recoveries by minor plaintiffs

20 in similar cases, the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable to the minor plaintiffs, R.R., J.R., H.B., 21 and M.B..

22

23

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, R.R, is to receive $10,833.34, and his younger

24 brother, J.R., is to receive $2,500. R.R. was five years old at the time of the alleged discriminatory 25 treatment and his play at the complex was impacted, whereas, his younger brother, J.R., was less than 26 one year old at that time and was too young to go outside to play. (Robidoux Dec. ¶13.) Neither child

27 required any medical or psychiatric treatment for the injuries they sustained. (Robidoux Dec. ¶13.)

28 6

Case 2:06-cv-02334-LKK-DAD Document 104 Filed 06/16/11 Page 8 of 11

1 What is more, neither child shows any signs of ongoing stress. (Robidoux Dec. ¶13.)

2

3

Furthermore, under the terms of the proposed settlement, the minor H.B. is to receive

4 $10,833.34, and her younger brother, M.B. is to receive $2,500. H.B. was three years old at the time of

5 the alleged discriminatory treatment, while her younger brother, M.B., was less than one year old at

6 that time. Neither child required any medical or psychiatric treatment for the injuries they sustained.

7 (Lingenfelter Dec. ¶23.) What is more, neither shows any signs of ongoing stress. (Lingenfelter Dec.

8 ¶23.)

9

10

The children in this case were frightened and concerned. Fortunately, none of the kids were

11 physically or psychologically injured. In light of the fact that they did not suffer any long-term physical

12 or mental injury, the amount of the recovery provided to them is very reasonable.

13

14

By way of comparison, on December 3, 2007, the Department of Housing and Urban

15 Development (“HUD”) reported in Fair Housing News that it had settled a substantially similar case

16 involving seven families who alleged that the managers of an apartment complex subjected residents

17 with children to stricter community rules than residents without children and/or retaliated against

18 residents with children for exercising their fair housing rights. The settlement, therein, called for the

19 seven families (adults and children) to receive less than $12,000 per family.3 By stark contrast, the

20 children, herein, alone have received a net recovery of $13,333.34, which is more than the entire

21

22
3A copy of the Winter 2008 issue of Fair Housing News is attached to the declaration of 23 Stuart E. Fagan as Exhibit No. 4. The document also may be found online at
http://disasterhousing.gov/offices/fheo/library/newsletter-wtr08.pdf. The total monetary recovery 24 secured by HUD was $170,000, with $83,000 going to the seven families; $15,000 going to a 25 fund for any additional victims; and $72,000 going to the construction and operation of an after-
school program for children who lived at the complex. As with most settlements, the document, 26 unfortunately, does not denote how much each child was receiving. Be that as it may, the
minors’ share, herein, exceeds the monetary share of each of the entire families in the referenced 27 HUD matter. Moreover, since the defendants, herein, had sold the apartment complex prior to 28 settlement, there was no opportunity for plaintiffs to secure similar, non-monetary relief.
7

Case 2:06-cv-02334-LKK-DAD Document 104 Filed 06/16/11 Page 9 of 11

1 families in the HUD case received. In short, the monetary payment to the minors, herein, is reasonable.

2

3

In March 2008, HUD announced a settlement in Fair Housing News involving a three-year old

4 autistic child. Therein, the management company refused to accommodate the special needs of a three-

5 year old child, and, eventually, sought to evict the family. In the end, the apartment owner and the

6 management company agreed to pay the parents $40,000 to settle the matter. The child did not receive

7 any of the settlement funds.4 By contrast, the children, herein, are receiving a net recovery of

8 $13,333.34.

9

10

In another fair housing matter alleging familial status discrimination, Housing Rights Center v.

11 Rivera Townhomes et al, #CV 02-5163PA(C.D. Cal. Feb. 2003), the plaintiffs (seven families)

12 complained that defendants injured plaintiffs through a policy that limited the families’ ability to spend

13 time in the common areas at the complex. A settlement was reached therein calling for each family to

14 receive approximately $18,500; that figure, however, was a gross figure from which attorney’s fees and

15 costs were to be deducted.5 With a similar complaint herein, the minor plaintiffs, alone, are receiving a

16 net settlement of $13,333.34 per family.

17

18

More recently, in Mathews v. Arrow Wood Apartments, UCDC Case No. EDCB07-1316-SGL

19 (C.D. Cal. 2009), the court approved a minor's compromise in a fair housing case involving eight

20 children, who, similarly, had been prohibited from playing outside at their apartment complex. There

21

22
4A copy of the March 2008 issue of Fair Housing News is attached to the Supplemental 23 Declaration of Stuart E. Fagan as Exhibit No. 1. The document also may be found online at
http://archives.hud.gov/news/2008/pr08-068.cfm (June 10, 2011). In addition to the payment to
24
the parents, the owner and the management company paid $2,500 to an autism group and $2,500 25 to a designated early childhood development center in the family’s school district.

26

5A copy of the consent decree entered in Housing Rights Center v. Rivera Townhomes et

al, #CV 02-5163PA(C.D. Cal. Feb. 2003) is attached to the Declaration of Stuart E. Fagan as 27 Exhibit No. 3. It is unclear from the consent decree entered therein what the net result was to

28 each family, for it does not spell out the amount of the attorney’s fees and costs.

8

Case 2:06-cv-02334-LKK-DAD Document 104 Filed 06/16/11 Page 10 of 11

1 was no psychological or physical damage suffered by the children. Each child, therein, received 2 between $6,108.50 and $8,620.71.

3

4

And in Matthis v. John L. Daly, USDC Case No. CV08-4789 SGL (Rzx) (C.D. Cal. 2009), the

5 court approved a minor's compromise for seven children, with each child receiving between $2,331.35

6 and $3,000. Similar to the case at hand, the children, therein, had been prohibited from playing outside

7 at their apartment complex. Likewise, there was no psychological or physical damage suffered by the

8 children.

9

10

In the end, in light of the facts of the case, each minor’s claims, and typical recoveries by minor

11 plaintiffs in similar cases, the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable to the minor plaintiffs, R.R.,

12 J.R., H.B., and M.B.

13

14

IV.

15

CONCLUSION

16

17

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs/guardians ad litem Regina Robidoux and Lorena

18 Lingenfelter respectfully request that the Court approve the proposed compromise of the claims of their

19 children, R.R., J.R., H.B., and M.B., for it is fair and reasonable in light of the facts of the case, each

20 minor’s claims, and typical recoveries by minor plaintiffs in similar cases.

21

22

If the Court decides that a hearing is necessary, then plaintiffs Regina Robidoux and Lorena

23 Lingenfelter are available to attend. Plaintiffs request, however, that the minors be excused from

24 attending.

25

26

27

28 9

Case 2:06-cv-02334-LKK-DAD Document 104 Filed 06/16/11 Page 11 of 11

1 Dated: June 16, 2011
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

LAW OFFICES OF STUART E. FAGAN By: /s/ Stuart E. Fagan
Stuart E. Fagan Attorneys for Plaintiffs
10

 
 Case 2:06-cv-02334-LKK-DAD Document 48 Filed 10/03/08 Page 1 of 3

1 LAW OFFICES OF STUART E. FAGAN STUART E. FAGAN, State Bar No. 152732
2 P.O. Box 503741 San Diego, California 92150-3741
3 Telephone: (858) 220-9601 Facsimile: (858) 676-5339
4 Email: fairhousinglawyer@sbcglobal.net
5 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 JESSE ROBIDOUX; REGINA

)

ROBIDOUX; RANDALL REICHENBERG )

12 JR. and JESSE J. ROBIDOUX JR., minors, )

by and through their GUARDIAN AD

)

13 LITEM, REGINA ROBIDOUX; SHAUN ) JOHNSON; LORENA LINGENFELTER; )

14 HANNAH BURK and MICHAEL BURK, )

minors, by and through their GUARDIAN )

15 AD LITEM, LORENA LINGENFELTER, )

individuals,

)

16

)

Plaintiffs,

)

17

)

v.

)

18

)

WACKER FAMILY TRUST; WAYNE )

19 WACKER, EILEEN WACKER, and

)

CHRISTINE WACKER, individually and )

20 doing business as VILLA SERRANO

)

APARTMENTS; BRIAN ROSENGREN, )

21

)

)

22

Defendants.

)

____________________________________ )

23

No. 2:06-CV-02334-LKK-DAD

NOTICE OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES ___________________________

Judge: Courtroom: Date: Time: Trial:

Lawrence K. Karlton 4 November 3, 2008 10 a.m. August 4, 2009

24
TO EACH PARTY AND TO THE ATTORNEY OF RECORD FOR EACH
25
PARTY IN THIS ACTION:
26

27
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT on November 3, 2008, at 10 a.m., or as soon
28
thereafter as the matter can be heard, in Courtroom 4 of this Court, located at 501 I Street, Sacramento,

Case 2:06-cv-02334-LKK-DAD Document 48 Filed 10/03/08 Page 2 of 3

1 California, Plaintiffs Jesse Robidoux, Regina Robidoux, Randall Reichenberg Jr., Jesse J. Robidoux 2 Jr., Shaun Johnson, Lorena Lingenfelter, Hannah Burk, and Michael Burk (“Plaintiffs”) will and 3 hereby do move this Court for Summary Judgment against Defendants Wacker Family Trust; Wayne 4 Wacker, Eileen Wacker, and Christine Wacker, Individually and Doing Business as Villa Serrano

5 Apartments (“Defendants”), or, in the alternative, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d), summarily

6 adjudicating issues as follows:

7

1. The Companion Rule violates 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b);

8

2. The Companion Rule violates 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c);

9

3. The Pool Rule violates 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b);

10

4. The Pool Rule violates 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c);

11

5. The January 23, 2006, Ninety Day Notice of Termination of Tenancy and a Warning

12

Notice violates 42 U.S.C. §3617;

13

6. The June 7, 2005, Sixty Day Notice to Terminate the Tenancy violates 42 U.S.C.

14

§3617;

15

7. Defendants are vicariously liable for any discriminatory acts of their agent, Shaun

16

Johnson;

17

8. Each of defendants’ violations of § 3604(b) and (c) also constitutes a

18

violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal.

19

Gov’t Code § 12955(a) and (c), respectively; and

20

9. Each of defendants’ violations of § 3604(b) and (c) and § 12955(a) and

21

(c) also constitutes a violation of the California Unfair Business

22

Practices Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.

23

24

This motion is based on this notice; the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities

25 in Support Thereof; the Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts; the Declarations of Regina

26 Robidoux, Lorena Lingenfelter, and Shaun Johnson; the documents lodged herewith; the complete

27 files and records in this action; and such oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at or

28 before any hearing on this matter.

Case 2:06-cv-02334-LKK-DAD Document 48 Filed 10/03/08 Page 3 of 3

1 Dated: October 3, 2008
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

LAW OFFICES OF STUART E. FAGAN
By: /s/ Stuart E. Fagan Stuart E. Fagan
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

 
 Case 2:06-cv-02334-LKK-DAD Document 75 Filed 03/31/09 Page 1 of 2

1 LAW OFFICES OF STUART E. FAGAN SrUART E. FAGAN. State Bar No. 152732
2 P.O. Box 503741 San Diego, California 92150-3741
3 Telephone: (858) 220-9601 Facsimile: (858) 676-5339
4 Email: fairhousingla\vyer@sbcglobal.net
5 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 JESSE ROBIDOUX; REGINA

)

ROBIDOUX; RANDALL REICHENBERG )

12 JR. and JESSE J. ROBIDOUX JR., minors, )

by and through their GUARDIAN AD

)

13 LITEM, REGIJ\A ROBIDOUX; SHAUN )

JOHNSON; LORENA LINGENFELTER; )

14 HANNAH BURK and MICHAEL BURK, )

minors, by and through their GUARDIAN )

15 AD LITEM, LORENA LINGENFELTER, )

individuals,

)

16

)

Plaintiffs,

)

17

)

V.

)

18

)

WACKER FAMIL Y TRUST; WAYNE )

19 WACKER, EILEEN WACKER, and

)

CHRISTINE WACKER, individually and )

20 doing business as VILLA SERRANO

)

APARTMENTS; BRIAN ROSENGREN, )

21

)

)

22

Defendants.

)

---)
23

No. 2:06-CV-02334-LKK-DAD NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

Judge:

Lawrence K. Karlton

Courtroom: 4

Trial:

December 1, 2009

24
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the parties in the above-entitled matter have
25
reached a settlement through mediation. Plaintiffs will file a motion to approve the compromise of the
26
claims of the minors involved within 20 days.
27

28

Case 2:06-cv-02334-LKK-DAD Document 75 Filed 03/31/09 Page 2 of 2

1 Dated: March 31, 2009
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

LA W OFFICES OF STUART E. FAGAN
By:++--II'---_ _ _ _ __ , uart E. Fagan
Atto neys for Plaintiffs

 
 JESSE ROBIDOUX; REGINA ROBIDOUX; RANDALL REICHEBERG, JR. and JESSE J. ROBIDOUX, JR., minors by and through their GUARDIAN AD LITEM, REGINA ROBIDOUX; SHAUN JOHNSON; LORENA LINGENFELTER; HANNAH BURK and MICHAEL BURK, minors by and through their GUARDIAN AD LITEM, LORENA LINGENFELTER, individuals, Plaintiffs, v. WACKER FAM-
ILY TRUST; WAYNE WACKER, EILEEN WACKER and CHRISTINE WACKER, individually and doing business as VILLA SERRANO APARTMENTS;
BRIAN ROSENGREN, Defendants.
NO. CIV.S-06-2334 LKK/DAD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49598
May 28, 2009, Decided May 29, 2009, Filed
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Reconsideration denied by Robidoux v. Wacker Family Trust, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58359 (E.D. Cal., July 7, 2009) Reversed by, Remanded by Robidoux v. Rosengren, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1217 (9th Cir. Cal., Jan. 21, 2011)
PRIOR HISTORY: Robidoux v. Wacker Family Trust, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85854 (E.D. Cal., Nov. 7, 2007)
COUNSEL: [*1] For Jesse Robidoux, Regina Robidoux, Lorena Lingenfelter, Randall Reichenberg, Jr., Minor, by and through the guardian ad litem Regina Robidoux guardian ad litem, Regina Robidoux, Jesse J. Robidoux, Jr., Minor, by and through the Guardian Ad Litem Regina Robidoux guardian ad litem, Regina Robidoux, Shaun Johnson, Hannah Burk, Minor, by and through the guardian ad litem Lorena Lingenfelter guardian ad litem, Lorena Lingenfelter, Michael Burk, Minor, by and through the guardian ad litem Lorena Lingenfelter guardian ad litem, Lorena Lingenfelter, Plaintiffs: Stuart E. Fagan, LEAD ATTORNEY, Law Offices of Stuart E. Fagan, San Diego, CA.
For Wacker Family Trust, Defendant: Luther R. Lewis, LEAD ATTORNEY, Johnson Schachter & Lewis, A PLC, Sacramento, CA; Mark A. Campbell, LEAD ATTORNEY, Murphy Campbell Guthrie and Alliston, Sacramento, CA; Tiffany P. Scarborough, LEAD ATTORNEY, Murphy Campbell Guthry and Alliston, Sacramento, CA.
For Christine Wacker, Doing business as Villa Serrano Apartments, Eileen Wacker, Wayne Wacker, Defendants: Luther R. Lewis, LEAD ATTORNEY, Johnson Schachter & Lewis, A PLC, Sacramento, CA; Mark A. Campbell, LEAD ATTORNEY, Murphy Campbell Guthrie and Alliston, Sacramento, [*2] CA.
For C&D Investment Properties dba Villa Serrano Apartments, Defendant: Alesa M. Schachter, LEAD ATTORNEY, Johnson Schachter & Lewis, Sacramento, CA; Luther R. Lewis, LEAD ATTORNEY, Johnson Schachter & Lewis, A PLC, Sacramento, CA; Mark A. Campbell, LEAD ATTORNEY, Murphy Campbell Guthrie and Alliston, Sacramento, CA.
JUDGES: LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SENIOR JUDGE.
OPINION BY: LAWRENCE K. KARLTON
OPINION

ORDER
The plaintiffs are individuals, including minors and their guardian ad litem, who alleged that defendants violated the rights under federal and state housing rights statutes, among others. Pending before the court is plaintiffs' request for approval of the compromise of the minor plaintiffs' claims. Defendants do not oppose the motion. For the reasons stated herein, the motion is granted in part.
I. BACKGROUND AND FACTS
According to the complaint, the plaintiffs are former residents of the Villa Serrano Apartments, allegedly operated and managed by defendants. They alleged that defendants discriminated against families with children, in violation of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq, the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov't Code § 12955, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, [*3] Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51 et seq., and the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204. Plaintiff Johnson is allegedly a former employee of the defendants as well as resident of the Villa Serrano Apartments and has alleged that defendants unlawfully terminated her tenancy. The plaintiffs also alleged that certain defendants are liable for negligence, assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In their complaint, plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as compensatory, punitive and treble damages and attorneys fees.
The complaint was filed in October 2006. In October 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment. The hearing on this motion was continued first upon the stipulation of the parties and subsequently by the court's order due to court congestion. Prior to the resolution of that motion, the parties filed a notice of settlement.
In the present motion, the plaintiffs request approval of settlement of the minors' claims. Under the settlement agreement, the defendants have agreed to pay all of the plaintiffs $ 240,000 for damages, attorney's fees, and costs. Amended Declaration of Stuart E. Fagan In Support of [*4] Motion to Approve Compromise of Minors' Claims ("Fagan Decl."), PP 59-61. Of this, plaintiffs' counsel will receive $ 135,000, or 56 percent of the total award, and the plaintiffs collectively will receive $ 105,000. Id. P 60. According to plaintiffs, the $ 105,000 will be distributed so that the Robidoux plaintiffs will share $ 35,000, the Lingenfelter plaintiffs will share $ 35,000, and plaintiff Johnson will receive $ 35,000. Pls.' Mot. to Approve Minors' Compromises at 1.
A. Robidoux Plaintiffs
The "Robidoux plaintiffs" include adults Jesse and Regina Robidoux and minors Randall Reichenberg and Jesse Robidoux, Jr. Declaration of Regina Robidoux In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Approve Compromise of Minors' Claims ("Robidoux Decl.") P 2. Regina is the mother of Randall and Jesse, Jr., and Jesse is the father of Jesse, Jr. Id. Regina was appointed guardian ad litem for her children. See Order, Oct. 30, 2006. According to her declaration, at the time she and her family moved into Villa Serrano Apartments, Randall was five years old. Robidoux Decl. P 2. Jesse, Jr. was born approximately ten months after the Robidoux family moved into the apartments. Id.
All of the Robidoux's allegations [*5] involve defendants' purported restrictions on and actions towards Randall as he played outside on various occasions. See generally Compl. Ultimately, defendants terminated the Robidoux's tenancy. Compl. P 30. Regina Robidoux has declared that the termination of the tenancy caused her stress and created household tension. Robidoux Decl. P 10.
According to Regina Robidoux, her family's receipt of $ 35,000 of the settlement award is "fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of [her] sons." Id. P 15. Of that amount, $ 2,500 will be allocated to Jesse, Jr., because "he was less than one year old during the entire time of the alleged discrimination and too young to go outside to play." Id. P 13. The remaining $ 32,500 will be divided equally among Regina, Jesse (Senior), and Randall. Id. Randall has shown "no signs of any ongoing stress" from the alleged incidents and neither son has "required any medical or psychiatric treatment" due to the defendants' alleged actions. Id.
B. Lingenfelter Plaintiffs
The Lingenfelter plaintiffs include Lorena Lingenfelter and her two minor children, Hannah and Michael Burk, of whom she received full custody during the time that she resided at the Villa Serrano [*6] Apartments. Declaration of Lorena Lingenfelter In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Approve Compromise of Minors' Claims ("Lingenfelter Decl.") P 2. Michael was less than a year old during the time of their tenancy and Hannah was three years old. Id. P 23. Generally speaking, the Lingenfelter plaintiffs alleged that defendants harassed them during their entire tenancy, particularly

Lorena Lingenfelter, based on Lorena having children as well as her alleged physical and mental impairments. See generally Compl. Lorena has declared that after defendants terminated her tenancy, she and her children were homeless for a period of time. Lingenfelter Decl. P 20.
Of the $ 35,000 of the settlement allocated to the Lingenfelters, $ 2,500 will be allocated to Michael, due to his young age at the time of the alleged incidents, and $ 10,833.34 will be allocated to Hannah Burk. Id. P 23. Neither child has shown signs of on-going stress or has required medical or psychiatric treatment. Id. The remaining $ 21,666.66 will be allocated to Lorena Lingenfelter. Id. She has declared that the settlement is "fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of [her] children." Id. P 25.
C. Shaun Johnson
Plaintiff Shaun [*7] Johnson was a resident of Villa Serrano Apartments and was a manager there, under the supervision of the defendants, in 2004 and 2005. Declaration of Shaun Johnson In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Approve Compromise of Minors' Claims ("Johnson Decl.") P 2. She has alleged that after she ceased working for defendants, she was harassed by them while residing at Villa Serrano. See generally Compl. According to plaintiffs, Johnson will be allocated $ 35,000 of the settlement award. Pls.' Mot. to Approve Minors' Compromises at 1.
D. Evidence Relevant to the Attorneys Fees Award
Plaintiffs have tendered other evidence in support of the reasonableness of the settlement award and particularly in support of the allocation of 56 percent of the award to plaintiffs' counsel. First, plaintiffs' counsel has tendered evidence that he expended 478.68 hours working on his clients' behalf in this case. 1 Fagan Decl. Ex. 1. This included investigation, communication with clients and witnesses, drafting the complaint and the motion for summary judgment, participation in the discovery process, and preparation for and participation in settlement negotiations. Id. PP 5-59, Ex. 1. Plaintiffs' counsel also [*8] identified several hours for which he did not seek compensation, including additional investigation. Id. PP 7-9.
1 In his declaration, plaintiffs' counsel stated that he spent 488.9 on the case, Fagan Decl. P 5, although the time records he tendered does not substantiate this figure. See Fagan Decl. Ex. 1.
Plaintiffs' counsel was retained by plaintiffs on a contingency basis. Id. P 6. He has declared that he has not received any compensation for any work on the claims in this suit. Id. He also has tendered evidence that he expended $ 8,500.73 in costs on the case. 2 Id. Ex. 1. Plaintiffs' counsel declared that his hourly rate is $ 350 and that he specializes in fair housing litigation throughout California. Id. P 4. Plaintiffs have tendered the declaration of Mary Scott Knoll, Executive Director of the Fair Housing Counsel of San Diego, who declared that there is a lack of experienced housing attorneys in that area and that plaintiffs' counsel is "one of the few competent attorneys in San Diego County to handle fair housing matters." Declaration of Mary Scott Knoll In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Approve Compromise of Minors' Claims ("Knoll Decl.") P 6. Plaintiffs have also tendered [*9] the declaration of Christopher Brancart, a senior partner in Brancart & Brancart, a firm that specializes in fair housing litigation. Declaration of Christopher Brancart In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Approve Compromise of Minors' Claims ("Brancart Decl.") PP 1-2. Brancart has declared that, based on his personal knowledge of plaintiffs' counsel's experience and skill, he believes that his hourly rate of $ 350 is lower than that of a comparable California attorney practicing fair housing law. Id. P 4. In 2006, the Superior Court of Alameda County found plaintiff counsel's hourly rate of $ 350 to be reasonable. Id. P 65, Ex. 2. (Ridgeway v. Harris, Case No. RG03130130, Nov. 9, 2006).
2 Although Fagan declared that he expended $ 8,780.73 in costs, see Fagan Decl. P 6, this is not substantiated by the evidence tendered.
Finally, plaintiffs have tendered evidence of settlement awards in similar cases of alleged fair housing violations. See Fagan Decl. PP 67-68, Ex. 3-5. In one case, the court approved a settlement award of $ 130,000 to eighteen plaintiff, several of whom were minors. Id. Ex. 3 (Fair Housing Counsel of San Diego et al. v. Rivera Townhouse Homeowners Assn. et al., Case [*10] No. 02-cv-5163 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2003)). This award encompassed attorneys' fees. Id. In another case, owners of a Missouri apartment complex settled with plaintiffs who had alleged housing discrimination on the basis that they had children. Id. Ex. 4. There, the settlement award was $ 83,000 in damages split among the seven plaintiffs. Id. Additionally, the defendants established a $ 15,000 fund for additional victims, provides $ 72,000 to create an after-school program at the apartment complex, and agreed to modified their rules regarding children. Id. Fi-

nally, plaintiffs have tendered evidence that according to the National Fair Housing Advocate's statistics, the average recovery amount in each case is $ 49,369. Id. Ex. 5.
II. STANDARD
Under the Local Rules, the court must approve the settlement of the claims of a minor. Local Rule 17-202(b). The party moving for approval of the settlement must provide the court "such . . . information as may be required to enable the Court to determine the fairness of the settlement or compromise. . . ." Local Rule 17-202(b)(2).
III. ANALYSIS
The court has a duty to determine the fairness of attorneys' fees when the fees are paid from the settlement [*11] award of a minor. Cappel v. Adams, 434 F.2d 1278 (5th Cir. 1970); Krause v. Rhodes, 640 F.2d 214 (6th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 836, 102 S. Ct. 140, 70 L. Ed. 2d 117 (1981); Friends for All Children, Inc. v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 567 F. Supp. 790, 812-13 (D.D.C. 1983). This duty derives from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), which gives the court a special responsibility to safeguard the interests of litigants who are minors. See Friends for All Children, 567 F. Supp. at 812-13; see also Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 1978).
In determining whether the settlement of minors' claims is fair, federal courts generally turn to state law. See 2 Schwarzer, Tashima & Wagstaffe, California Practice Guide, Federal Procedure Before Trial (2002) Pretrial Conference and Settlement Procedures, P 15:136, p. 15-42; Nice v. Centennial Area Sch. Dist., 98 F. Supp. 2d 665, 668-69 (E.D. Pa. 2000); Walden v. Moffett, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71490, 2007 WL 2859790 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2007); Deja Marie J v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61023, 2006 WL 2348884 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2006).
One leading California practice guide observes:
Courts vary in their fee approval policies. All will consider the time expended and the complexity of [*12] the case. But, in contingency fee cases, most courts require a showing of "good cause" to award more than 25% of any recovery. [Citations omitted] . . . As a practical matter, awards for more than 25% of the recovery in a minor's case are rare and justified only when counsel proves that he or she provided extraordinary services.
2 Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide, Civil Procedure Before Trial (2007) Settlement Procedures, PP 12:576-12:577, p. 12(II)-17 (emphasis in original). This standard reflects the local rules of many California courts. See, e.g., Sacramento Superior Court Rule 10.02 (a "reasonable" attorney fee for the settlement of a minor's claim is 25%); San Diego Superior Court Rule 2.4.6.B ("Absent extraordinary circumstances, attorneys' fees will not exceed 25% of the gross proceeds of the settlement"); Los Angeles Superior Court Rule 10.79(c)(3) ("Except where good cause is shown, the attorneys fees shall not exceed an amount equal to twenty-five percent (25%) of the gross proceeds of settlement . . ."); Orange County Superior Court Rule 368 (unless good cause shown, attorneys' fees for the settlement of a minor's claim shall not exceed 25% of the gross award, less costs); [*13] Alameda County Superior Court Rule Appendix B(2) (for pretrial settlement of minors' claims, attorneys fees shall not exceed 25 percent of the settlement amount, less costs).
Under the California Probate Code's provisions governing guardianship, the court must approve reasonable attorneys' fees contained as part of the settlement of a minor's claim. Cal. Prob. Code §§ 3600-3601. The court has discretion to determine the reasonableness of an award considering "the type and difficulty of the matter, counsel's skill vis-a-vis the skill required to handle the case, and the outcome." Padilla v. McClellan, 93 Cal. App. 4th 1100, 1107, 113 Cal. Rptr. 2d 680 (2001), citing Contractors Labor Pool, Inc. v. Westway Contractors, Inc., 53 Cal. App. 4th 152, 168, 61 Cal. Rptr. 2d 715 (1997); see also Curtis v. Fagan, 82 Cal. App. 4th 270, 276-77, 98 Cal. Rptr. 2d 84 (2000). Similar to the measure of attorneys' fees under federal law, see, e.g., Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 888, 104 S. Ct. 1541, 79 L. Ed. 2d 891 (1984), the court should consider the amount of counsel's services rendered to the minor and the value of those services. Padilla, 93 Cal. App. 4th at 1108; see also PLCM Grp. v. Drexler, 22 Cal. 4th 1084, 95 Cal. Rptr. 2d 198, 997 P.2d 511 (2000) (attorneys fees calculation begins with lodestar). Nonetheless, equitable [*14] considerations should guide the court's determination of a fair and reasonable attorneys' fees award. See PLCM, 22 Cal. 4th at 1095.
Here, the plaintiffs have tendered evidence that counsel's fee of $ 350 per hour is reasonable in metropolitan markets in California, given his skill and experience. Brancart Decl. P 4. Plaintiffs have also tendered evidence of the amount of time counsel expended on the case. Fagan Decl. Ex. 1. The court has reviewed these records and all of the

time for which he seeks compensation appears reasonable, as it includes those duties which a diligent attorney would typically perform in litigation: communication with his clients, legal research, drafting the complaint, conducting discovery and factual research, and participating in mediation. These are the types of activities for which an attorneys fee award may reasonably include. See, e.g., Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal. 4th 1122, 1128, 1131-32, 104 Cal. Rptr. 2d 377, 17 P.3d 735 (2001).
Nonetheless, the court finds an attorneys' fees award of 56 percent of the total settlement amount to be excessive and to not represent a fair compromise of the minors' claims. As set forth above, in California courts attorneys are typically awarded a maximum of 25 [*15] percent of the total settlement award of a minor's claim, less costs, unless there are extraordinary circumstances warranting a greater award. Here, plaintiffs' counsel would be awarded more than twice the limit set by California courts. His fee award would also represent five times the amount of the settlement funds allocated to all of the minor plaintiffs, cumulatively. See Lingenfelter Decl. P 23; Robidoux Decl. P 13. In order for this to represent a fair allocation of the settlement, counsel's efforts or results would need to be truly extraordinary indeed.
The court's review of the evidence tendered does not demonstrate this. Although plaintiffs secured a settlement award that exceeds the apparent average award for similar cases, the settlement is not so extraordinary to merit counsel's apparently excessive fee award. There has been no evidence tendered to the court of the terms of the settlement beyond the monetary award. In comparison, for example, in one of the purportedly similar cases of which plaintiffs have tendered evidence, the plaintiffs recovered not only a monetary award, but defendants also established a fund for additional victims of their discriminatory practices, [*16] modified their rules and practices, required all employees and agents to attend fair housing training, and provided $ 72,000 to establish an after-school program for children who reside at the apartment complex. Fagan Decl. Ex. 4 at 2. Here, there is no evidence of the settlement encompasses such a comprehensive remedy or that the results plaintiffs' counsel obtained could otherwise be characterized as extraordinary. See Padilla, 93 Cal. App. 4th at 1107 (outcome of the case relevant to determination of whether attorneys fee is fair in the compromise of a minor's settlement). There is no evidence tendered that the settlement agreement contains even a requirement that defendants change their policies and procedures or otherwise take steps to ensure that the alleged violations do not recur. See Compl., Prayer for Relief. Finally, although plaintiffs' counsel spent 478.68 hours on the case, the case had been pending for two and a half years prior to settlement, which results in an average of sixteen hours of work per month. This does not reflect a particularly extraordinary amount of effort in litigating the case, so as to merit such a proportionally large fee award. See Padilla, 93 Cal. App. 4th at 1107 [*17] (counsel's "time and attention [given] to the case" relevant in considering the attorneys fees award in the settlement of a minor's claim).
Nonetheless, the court notes that the settlement amount is much greater than that of the average fair housing case, based on the evidence tendered to the court. See Fagan Decl. Ex. 5. Based on this, the court finds that it is equitable to increase the amount of plaintiffs' counsel fee award beyond the 25 percent that is standard in California. See PLCM, 22 Cal. 4th at 1095 (equitable concerns should guide court's attorney's fees award). Accordingly, the court approves the compromise of the minors' claims in all respects except that, of the total settlement award, plaintiffs' counsel shall be awarded $ 8,500.73 in costs and one-third percent of the remaining award, or $ 77,166.42, in fees.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as provided herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 28, 2009.
/s/ Lawrence K. Karlton
LAWRENCE K. KARLTON
SENIOR JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 
 JESSE ROBIDOUX; REGINA ROBIDOUX; RANDALL REICHEBERG, JR. and JESSE J. ROBIDOUX, JR., minors by and through their GUARDIAN AD LITEM, REGINA ROBIDOUX; SHAUN JOHNSON; LORENA LINGENFELTER; HANNAH BURK and MICHAEL BURK, minors by and through their GUARDIAN AD LITEM, LORENA LINGENFELTER, individuals, Plaintiffs, v. WACKER FAM-
ILY TRUST; WAYNE WACKER, EILEEN WACKER and CHRISTINE WACKER, individually and doing business as VILLA SERRANO APARTMENTS;
BRIAN ROSENGREN, Defendants.
NO. CIV.S-06-2334 LKK/DAD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58359
July 7, 2009, Decided July 8, 2009, Filed
PRIOR HISTORY: Robidoux v. Wacker Family Trust, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49598 (E.D. Cal., May 28, 2009)
COUNSEL: [*1] For Jesse Robidoux, Regina Robidoux, Lorena Lingenfelter, Randall Reichenberg, Jr., Minor, by and through the guardian ad litem Regina Robidoux guardian ad litem Regina Robidoux, Jesse J. Robidoux, Jr., Minor, by and through the Guardian Ad Litem Regina Robidoux guardian ad litem Regina Robidoux, Shaun Johnson, Hannah Burk, Minor, by and through the guardian ad litem Lorena Lingenfelter, Michael Burk, Minor, by and through the guardian ad litem Lorena Lingenfelter, Plaintiffs: Stuart E. Fagan, LEAD ATTORNEY, Law Offices of Stuart E. Fagan, San Diego, CA.
For Wacker Family Trust, Defendant: Luther R. Lewis, LEAD ATTORNEY, Johnson Schachter & Lewis, A PLC, Sacramento, CA; Mark A. Campbell, LEAD ATTORNEY, Murphy Campbell Guthrie and Alliston, Sacramento, CA; Tiffany P. Scarborough, LEAD ATTORNEY, Murphy Campbell Guthry and Alliston, Sacramento, CA.
For Christine Wacker, Doing business as Villa Serrano Apartments, Eileen Wacker, Wayne Wacker, Defendants: Luther R. Lewis, LEAD ATTORNEY, Johnson Schachter & Lewis, A PLC, Sacramento, CA; Mark A. Campbell, LEAD ATTORNEY, Murphy Campbell Guthrie and Alliston, Sacramento, CA.
For C&D Investment Properties dba Villa Serrano Apartments, Defendant: [*2] Alesa M. Schachter, LEAD ATTORNEY, Johnson Schachter & Lewis, Sacramento, CA; Luther R. Lewis, LEAD ATTORNEY, Johnson Schachter & Lewis, A PLC, Sacramento, CA; Mark A. Campbell, LEAD ATTORNEY, Murphy Campbell Guthrie and Alliston, Sacramento, CA.
JUDGES: LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, SENIOR JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
OPINION BY: LAWRENCE K. KARLTON
OPINION
ORDER Plaintiffs had previously moved for approval of minor plaintiffs' settlement, which the court rejected on the basis
that it had not been shown that plaintiffs' counsel's attorneys fees were reasonable. Plaintiffs move for reconsideration of that order.

The court resolves the motion on the papers. 1 For the reasons stated herein, the court denies the motion.
1 Defendants have filed a statement of non-opposition.
I. BACKGROUND
The plaintiffs sued the defendants, Villa Serrano Apartments and its owners and operators, for violations of the Fair Housing Act, the California Fair Housing and Employment Act, and other state claims, alleging that the defendants discriminated against families with children. See Complaint. Plaintiff Johnson is allegedly a former employee of the defendants as well as resident of the Villa Serrano Apartments and has alleged that defendants [*3] unlawfully terminated her tenancy. The plaintiffs also alleged that certain defendants are liable for negligence, assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In their complaint, plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as compensatory, punitive and treble damages and attorneys fees.
The parties ultimately agreed to a settlement, whereby defendants agreed to pay all of the plaintiffs $ 240,000 for damages, attorney's fees, and costs. Amended Declaration of Stuart E. Fagan In Support of Motion to Approve Compromise of Minors' Claims ("Fagan Decl.") PP 59-61. Of this, it was proposed that plaintiffs' counsel would receive $ 135,000, or 56 percent of the total award, and the plaintiffs collectively would receive $ 105,000. Id. P 60. According to plaintiffs, the $ 105,000 will be distributed so that the Robidoux plaintiffs would share $ 35,000, the Lingenfelter plaintiffs would share $ 35,000, and plaintiff Johnson would receive $ 35,000. Pls.' Mot. to Approve Minors' Compromises at 1.
On May 29, 2009, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to approve the compromise of the minors' claims in part, but denied it to the extent of attorneys' fees [*4] that would be allocated to plaintiffs' counsel. The court determined that plaintiffs had not demonstrated that an allocation of so great a percentage of the total settlement award to counsel was fair. The court instead awarded plaintiffs' counsel the full amount of costs requested and one-third of the remaining settlement amount as fees. It is of this order that plaintiffs now seek reconsideration.
II. STANDARD
"Under the 'law of the case' doctrine a court is generally precluded from reconsidering an issue that has already been decided by the same court, or a higher court in the identical case." United States v. Alexander, 106 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Thomas v. Bible, 983 F.2d 152, 154 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 951, 113 S. Ct. 2443, 124 L. Ed. 2d 661 (1993)). Although motions to reconsider are directed to the sound discretion of the court, see KernTulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1015, 108 S. Ct. 1752, 100 L. Ed. 2d 214 (1988), considerations of judicial economy weigh heavily in the process. Thus, Local Rule 78-230(k) requires that a party seeking reconsideration of a district [*5] court's order must brief the "new or different facts or circumstances which... were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion." Generally speaking, before reconsideration may be granted there must be a change in the controlling law or facts, the need to correct a clear error, or the need to prevent manifest injustice. See Alexander, 106 F.3d at 876; see also Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Oregon v. AC&S, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993); Nunes v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805, 807 (9th Cir. 2003).
Motions to reconsider are not vehicles permitting the unsuccessful party to "rehash" arguments previously presented. See Costello v. United States Government, 765 F. Supp. 1003, 1009 (C.D. Cal. 1991). Nor is a motion to reconsider justified on the basis of new evidence available prior to the court's ruling. See Fay Corp. v. BAT Holdings One, Inc., 651 F. Supp. 307, 309 (W.D. Wash. 1987), aff'd, 896 F.2d 1227 (9th Cir. 1990). Finally, "after thoughts" or "shifting of ground" do not constitute an appropriate basis for reconsideration. See id. These relatively restrictive standards "reflect [ ] district courts' concern for preserving dwindling resources [*6] and promoting judicial efficiency." Costello, 765 F. Supp. at 1009.
III. ANALYSIS
Plaintiffs assert that the court committed clear error in its May 29, 2009 order because it did not award attorneys' fees based on application of the lodestar method that typically applies to cases brought under the Fair Housing Act. The court cannot agree.
While the plaintiffs are correct that the lodestar method of determining attorneys' fees is utilized in Fair Housing Act cases and that this method serves an important policy purpose, see Ferland v. Conrad Credit Corp., 244 F.3d 1145,

1149 n.4 (9th Cir. 2001), as the court explained in its order, it has a special duty to only approve settlement awards of minors' claims that are fair. See Order, May 29, 2009 at 8, citing, inter alia, Local Rule 17-202(b)(2) & Fed. R. of Civ. P. 17(c). Plaintiffs have not directed the court to any authority holding that this obligation is abrogated in civil rights cases. In fact, a court may limit attorneys' fees even in civil rights cases where equitable considerations would be served. See, e.g., Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. State of Washington, 633 F.2d 1338, 1347-48 (9th Cir. 1980) (court can decline to award any attorneys [*7] fees to prevailing party under civil rights statute where balance of the equities warrants it); Krause v. Rhodes, 640 F.2d 214, 217 (6th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 836, 102 S. Ct. 140, 70 L. Ed. 2d 117 (court has discretion to limit attorneys' fees award where fees awarded under 42 U.S.C. ß 1988). Clearly, the court's duty to ensure that minor parties' interests are given fair consideration in a proceeding is such an acceptable limit to a fee award. See Order, May 29, 2009 at 8.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 7, 2009.
/s/ Lawrence K. Karlton
LAWRENCE K. KARLTON
SENIOR JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 
 Case: 2:06-cv-02334-LKK -DAD As of: 07/30/2012 09:43 AM PDT 1 of 11
CIVIL, CLOSED, VDRP−T
U.S. District Court Eastern District of California − Live System (Sacramento) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:06−cv−02334−LKK −DAD

Robidoux et al v Wacker Family Trust et al Assigned to: Judge Lawrence K. Karlton Referred to: Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd Demand: $0 Cause: 42:405 Fair Housing Act Plaintiff Jesse Robidoux
Plaintiff Regina Robidoux
Plaintiff Lorena Lingenfelter
Plaintiff Randall Reichenberg, Jr. Minor, by and through the guardian ad litem Regina Robidoux guardian ad litem Regina Robidoux Plaintiff Jesse J. Robidoux, Jr. Minor, by and through the Guardian Ad Litem Regina Robidoux guardian ad litem Regina Robidoux Plaintiff Shaun Johnson
Plaintiff Hannah Burk Minor, by and through the guardian ad litem Lorena Lingenfelter guardian ad litem

Date Filed: 10/23/2006 Date Terminated: 08/19/2011 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 443 Civil Rights: Accommodations Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Stuart E. Fagan Law Offices of Stuart E. Fagan P.O. Box 503741 San Diego, CA 92150−3741 (858) 220−9601 Fax: (858) 676−5339 Email: fairhousinglawyer@sbcglobal.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stuart E. Fagan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stuart E. Fagan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stuart E. Fagan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stuart E. Fagan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stuart E. Fagan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stuart E. Fagan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:06-cv-02334-LKK -DAD As of: 07/30/2012 09:43 AM PDT 2 of 11

Lorena Lingenfelter

Plaintiff
Michael Burk Minor, by and through the guardian ad litem Lorena Lingenfelter guardian ad litem Lorena Lingenfelter

represented by Stuart E. Fagan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Brian Rosengren Defendant Wacker Family Trust
Defendant Christine Wacker Doing business as Villa Serrano Apartments

represented by Luther R. Lewis Johnson Schachter &Lewis, A PLC 2180 Harvard Street Suite 560 Sacramento, CA 95815 916−921−5800 Fax: 916−921−0247 Email: luther@jsl−law.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark A. Campbell Murphy Campbell Guthrie and Alliston 8801 Folsom Boulevard Suite 230 Sacramento, CA 95826 (916) 484−3501 x204 Fax: (916) 484−3511 Email: mcampbell@murphycampbell.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tiffany P. Scarborough Murphy Campbell Guthry and Alliston 8801 Folson Blvd Suite 230 Sacramento, CA 95826 916−484−3501 Fax: 916−484−3511 Email: tscarborough@murphycampbell.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Luther R. Lewis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark A. Campbell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin Scott Altmann Murphy Campbell Guthrie &Alliston 8801 Folsom Blvd

Case: 2:06-cv-02334-LKK -DAD As of: 07/30/2012 09:43 AM PDT 3 of 11

Suite 230 Sacramento, CA 95826 916−484−3501 Fax: 916−484−3511 Email: jaltmann@murphycampbell.com TERMINATED: 06/02/2009

Defendant Eileen Wacker

represented by Luther R. Lewis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark A. Campbell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Justin Scott Altmann (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/02/2009

Defendant Wayne Wacker

represented by Luther R. Lewis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark A. Campbell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Justin Scott Altmann (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/02/2009

Defendant
CDInvestment Properties dba Villa Serrano Apartments

represented by Alesa M. Schachter Johnson Schachter &Lewis 2180 Harvard Street Suite 560 Sacramento, CA 95815 (916) 921−5800 Fax: (916) 921−0247 Email: alesa@jsl−law.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Luther R. Lewis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark A. Campbell (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Neutral
VDRP TERMINATED: 11/06/2007

Case: 2:06-cv-02334-LKK -DAD As of: 07/30/2012 09:43 AM PDT 4 of 11

Date Filed 10/23/2006 10/23/2006 10/23/2006 10/23/2006 10/23/2006 10/24/2006 10/24/2006
10/24/2006
10/24/2006 10/30/2006
10/30/2006
12/26/2006 01/08/2007 01/09/2007 01/10/2007 01/12/2007
01/12/2007

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against all defendants by Jesse Robidoux. Attorney Fagan, Stuart E. added.(Fagan, Stuart) (Entered: 10/23/2006)
2 MOTION to APPOINT GUARDIAN AD LITEM by Regina Robidoux. Attorney Fagan, Stuart E. added. (Fagan, Stuart) (Entered: 10/23/2006)
3 MOTION to APPOINT GUARDIAN AD LITEM by Lorena Lingenfelter. Attorney Fagan, Stuart E. added. (Fagan, Stuart) (Entered: 10/23/2006)
4 PROPOSED ORDER on Petition of Regina Robidoux For Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem 2 (Fagan, Stuart) Modified on 10/24/2006 (Duong, D). Modified on 10/24/2006 (Duong, D). (Entered: 10/23/2006)
5 PROPOSED ORDER on Petition of Lorena Lingenfelter For Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem 3 . (Fagan, Stuart) Modified on 10/24/2006 (Duong, D). (Entered: 10/23/2006)
RECEIPT number 204−12250 for $350 for Filing Fee from Stuart E. Fagan. (Duong, D) (Entered: 10/24/2006)
7 SUMMONS ISSUED as to *Eileen Wacker, Wayne Wacker, Brian Rosengren, Wacker Family Trust, Christine Wacker* with answer to complaint due within *20* days. Attorney *Stuart E. Fagan* *Law Offices of Stuart E. Fagan* *PO Box 503741* *San Diego, CA 92150−3741*. (Duong, D) (Entered: 10/24/2006)
8 CIVIL NEW CASE DOCUMENTS ISSUED; Initial Scheduling Conference set for 1/22/2007 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Forms # 2 VDRP Forms) (Duong, D) (Entered: 10/24/2006)
9 NOTICE by all plaintiffs re 1 Complaint. Civil Cover Sheet (Fagan, Stuart) (Entered: 10/24/2006)
10 ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 10/27/06 ORDERING that the Petition of Lorena Lingenfelter for Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem 5 is GRANTED. Lorena Lingenfelter is appointed guardian ad litem for the minor Children, Hannah Burk and Michael Burk. (Mena−Sanchez, L) (Entered: 10/30/2006)
11 ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 10/27/06 ORDERING that the Petition of Regina Robidoux for appointment of Guardian ad Litem 4 is GRANTED. Regina Robidoux is appointed guardian ad litem for the minor children, Randall Reichenberg Jr. and Jessie J. Robidoux Jr., (Mena−Sanchez, L) (Entered: 10/30/2006)
12 STIPULATION Extending Time for Dfts to Appear by CDInvestment Properties dba Villa Serrano Apartments. Attorney Schachter, Alesa M added. (Schachter, Alesa) Modified on 12/27/2006 (Brown, T). (Entered: 12/26/2006)
13 CERTIFICATE of SERVICE re 8 by Jesse Robidoux. (Fagan, Stuart) Modified on 1/9/2007 (Duong, D). (Entered: 01/08/2007)
14 PLAINTIFF(S) STATUS REPORT by Jesse Robidoux. (Fagan, Stuart) (Entered: 01/09/2007)
15 AMENDED STATUS REPORT by Jesse Robidoux. (Fagan, Stuart) (Entered: 01/10/2007)
16 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Referral to Voluntary Dispute Resolution Program by Eileen Wacker, Wayne Wacker, CDInvestment Properties dba Villa Serrano Apartments, Christine Wacker. Attorney Lewis, Luther R. added. (Lewis, Luther) Modified on 1/16/2007 (Brown, T). (Entered: 01/12/2007)
17 DEFENDANT(S) STATUS REPORT by Eileen Wacker, Wayne Wacker, CDInvestment Properties dba Villa Serrano Apartments, Christine Wacker. (Lewis, Luther) (Entered: 01/12/2007)

Case: 2:06-cv-02334-LKK -DAD As of: 07/30/2012 09:43 AM PDT 5 of 11

01/16/2007
01/16/2007 01/22/2007
01/24/2007
02/01/2007 02/01/2007 02/22/2007 02/22/2007 02/26/2007 02/26/2007 03/21/2007 07/02/2007
11/06/2007 11/08/2007 12/04/2007 02/08/2008 02/25/2008

18 ANSWER to COMPLAINT with Jury Demand by Eileen Wacker, Wayne Wacker, CDInvestment Properties dba Villa Serrano Apartments, Wacker Family Trust, Christine Wacker. Attorney Lewis, Luther R. added.(Lewis, Luther) (Entered: 01/16/2007)
19 STIPULATION and ORDER for Referral to Voluntary Dispute Resolution Program signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 1/16/07. Case Referred to VDRP. (cc: VDRP Administrator).(Brown, T) (Entered: 01/16/2007)
20 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings held before Judge Lawrence K. Karlton: SCHEDULING CONFERENCE held on 1/22/2007. Final Pretrial Conference set for 6/23/2008 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. 7 day Jury Trial set for 9/23/2008 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. Court order to follow. Plaintiffs Counsel Stuart Fagan present. Defendants Counsel Luther Lewis present. (Rivas, A) (Entered: 01/22/2007)
21 SCHEDULING ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 01/23/07. : Case Referred to VDRP. Discovery ddl 6/23/2008. Dispositive Hearing Motion ddl 3/23/2008. Final Pretrial Conference set for 6/23/2008 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. Jury Trial set for 9/23/2008 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton.(Duong, D) (Entered: 01/24/2007)
22 [TEXT ONLY ENTRY] COURT LETTER from VDRP Administrator appointing J. Scott Smith, Esq., of Angelo, Kilday &Kilduff, as Neutral Attorney.(Martinez, L) (Entered: 02/01/2007)
23 PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN by Jesse Robidoux. (Fagan, Stuart) Modified on 2/2/2007 (Carlos, K). (Entered: 02/01/2007)
24 CERTIFICATE of SERVICE by Jesse Robidoux. Re Brian Rosengren (Fagan, Stuart) (Entered: 02/22/2007)
25 CERTIFICATE of SERVICE by Jesse Robidoux re 24 Certificate of Service. Re Brian Rosengren (Fagan, Stuart) (Entered: 02/22/2007)
26 REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT as to Brian Rosengren by Jesse Robidoux. (Fagan, Stuart) (Entered: 02/26/2007)
27 CLERK'S ENTRY OF DEFAULT as to *Brian Rosengren* (Carlos, K) (Entered: 02/26/2007)
28 STIPULATION and PROPOSED Protective Order Re Defendants' Financial Information by Jesse Robidoux. (Fagan, Stuart) Modified on 3/22/2007 (Duong, D). (Entered: 03/21/2007)
29 ASSOCIATION of ATTORNEY: Added attorney Mark A. Campbell for Eileen Wacker, Wayne Wacker, Wacker Family Trust, Christine Wacker, and CDInvestment Properties dba Serrano Apartments. (Lewis, Luther) Modified on 7/2/2007 (Matson, R). Modified on 7/2/2007 (Matson, R). (Entered: 07/02/2007)
[TEXT ONLY ENTRY] COMPLETION of VDRP, terminating VDRP party. This case has completed the VDRP process. Case did not settle.(Martinez, L) (Entered: 11/06/2007)
30 ORDER signed by Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/7/07 DENYING without prejudice 28 Stipulation and Proposed Order. (Anderson, J) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
31 NOTICE of CHANGE of ADDRESS by Mark A. Campbell. Attorney Campbell, Mark A. added. (Campbell, Mark) (Entered: 12/04/2007)
32 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Co−Counsel with Clients' Consent by Eileen Wacker, Wayne Wacker, Christine Wacker. (Campbell, Mark) Modified on 2/11/2008 (Duong, D). (Entered: 02/08/2008)
33 MOTION for PROTECTIVE ORDER by Eileen Wacker, Wayne Wacker, CDInvestment Properties dba Villa Serrano Apartments, Wacker Family Trust, Christine Wacker. Motion Hearing set for 2/25/2008 at 03:00 PM in Courtroom 27

Case: 2:06-cv-02334-LKK -DAD As of: 07/30/2012 09:43 AM PDT 6 of 11

02/25/2008 02/25/2008 02/25/2008 02/25/2008 02/25/2008
02/25/2008
06/07/2008 06/09/2008 06/09/2008 06/17/2008 06/17/2008

(DAD) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. (Lewis, Luther) (Entered: 02/25/2008)
34 PROPOSED ORDER re 33 MOTION for PROTECTIVE ORDER. (Lewis, Luther) Modified on 2/27/2008 (Kaminski, H). (Entered: 02/25/2008)
35 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order Shortening Time for Motion to be Heard by Eileen Wacker, Wayne Wacker, CDInvestment Properties dba Villa Serrano Apartments, Wacker Family Trust, Christine Wacker . (Lewis, Luther) Modified on 2/27/2008 (Kaminski, H). (Entered: 02/25/2008)
36 DECLARATION of Luther R. Lewis in SUPPORT of 35 Ex Parte Application,. (Lewis, Luther) Modified on 2/27/2008 (Kaminski, H). (Entered: 02/25/2008)
37 PROPOSED ORDER re 36 Declaration, 35 Ex Parte Application, by Eileen Wacker, Wayne Wacker, CDInvestment Properties dba Villa Serrano Apartments, Wacker Family Trust, Christine Wacker. (Lewis, Luther) Modified on 2/27/2008 (Kaminski, H). (Entered: 02/25/2008)
38 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd: IN COURT HEARING held on 2/25/2008. Court noted it reviewed circumstances regarding hearing as to defendant's ex parte application for order shortening time 35 . After hearing, Court found good cause has not been shown to hear the motion for protective order on a shorten basis. Court reviewed the docket, Local Rules, and Mr. Campbells notice of withdrawal. After hearing, for reasons stated on the record, defendant's application for order shortening time denied. Mr. Campbells withdrawal would in effect leave the Wackers in pro per. Pursuant to Local Rules, withdrawal required court approval. No court approval has been forthcoming, the termination of him as counsel of record is Ordered rescinded. Mr. Campbell can seek leave of court to withdrawal. Court found, under these circumstances, leave of court is required. Mr. Campbell is still counsel of record. Mr. Campbell or someone from his office to be present at Tuesday's depositions representing the Wackers', unless he has an order approving his withdrawal between now and then. Court to issue written order. Plaintiffs Counsel Stuart Fagan present. Defendants Counsel Luther Lewis, telephonic present. Court Reporter/CD Number: ECRO/1. (Buzo, P) (Entered: 02/25/2008)
39 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/25/08 DENYING 35 Application for order shortening time for motion to be heard. 33 Motion for Protective Order is moot. 32 Notice of withdrawal of Mark A. Campbell does not meet the requirements of LR 83−182(d) and is RESCINDED. The clerk is to amend the docket to reflect that attorney Campbell has not been terminated as counsel for defendants Wacker Family Trust, Wayne Wacker, Eileen Wacker, and Christine Wacker, individually and doing business as Villa Serrano Apartments. Clerk is further directed to amend the docket to reflect that Mark A. Campbell is not the attorney of record for Brian Rosengren, as no appearance was made on behalf of defendant Rosengren. (Donati, J) (Entered: 02/25/2008)
40 STATEMENT of MID−LITIGATION by plts. (Fagan, Stuart) Modified on 6/9/2008 (Duong, D). (Entered: 06/07/2008)
41 Mid−Litigation STATEMENT by Defendants Eileen Wacker, Wayne Wacker, CDInvestment Properties dba Villa Serrano Apartments, Wacker Family Trust, Christine Wacker. Attorney Altmann, Justin Scott added. (Altmann, Justin) Modified on 6/10/2008 (Duong, D). (Entered: 06/09/2008)
42 PLAINTIFF(S) PRETRIAL STATEMENT . (Attachments: # 1 Witness List, # 2 Exhibit List)(Fagan, Stuart) Modified on 6/10/2008 (Duong, D). (Entered: 06/09/2008)
43 DEFENDANT(S) SEPARATE PRETRIAL STATEMENT . (Attachments: # 1 Witness List )(Campbell, Mark) Modified on 6/18/2008 (Duong, D). (Entered: 06/17/2008)
44 EXHIBIT LIST − Attachment 2 to 43 Pretrial Statement by dfts.(Campbell, Mark) Modified on 6/18/2008 (Duong, D). (Entered: 06/17/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-02334-LKK -DAD As of: 07/30/2012 09:43 AM PDT 7 of 11

06/17/2008 06/23/2008
06/24/2008
10/03/2008 10/03/2008 10/03/2008 10/03/2008 10/03/2008 10/03/2008 10/03/2008 10/14/2008 10/16/2008 10/16/2008 10/20/2008
11/11/2008

45 JOINT STATEMENT of Disputed and Undisputed Factual Issues. (Campbell, Mark) Modified on 6/18/2008 (Duong, D). (Entered: 06/17/2008)
47 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings held before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton: SCHEDULING CONFERENCE held on 6/23/2008. The Pretrial Conference is CONTINUED to May 18, 2009 at 2:30 PM. 7 day Jury Trial is set for August 4, 2009 at 10:30 AM. Plaintiffs Counsel Stuart Fagan present. Defendants Counsel Mark Campbell, Jason Sherman, Luther Lewis present.(Rivas, A) (Entered: 06/26/2008)
46 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 6/24/08 ORDERING that Discovery shall be conducted so as to be completed no later than December 23, 2008. Experts are to be disclosed no later than sixty (60) days prior to the close of discovery. The last date for hearing motions regarding discovery is November 23, 2008. Law and Motion shall be conducted so as to be completed no later than February 23, 2009. The Pretrial Conference is set for May 18, 2009 at 2:30 PM. Trial is set for August 4, 2009. The parties represent in good faith that the trial will take approximately seven (7) days. (Duong, D) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
48 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT by plaintiffs. Motion Hearing set for 11/3/2008 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. (Fagan, Stuart) Modified on 10/6/2008 (Kaminski, H). (Entered: 10/03/2008)
49 MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in SUPPORT of 48 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT . (Fagan, Stuart) Modified on 10/6/2008 (Kaminski, H). (Entered: 10/03/2008)
50 STATEMENT of UNDISPUTED FACTS by Plaintiffs in support of 48 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT .(Fagan, Stuart) Modified on 10/6/2008 (Kaminski, H). (Entered: 10/03/2008)
51 DECLARATION of Shaun Johnson in SUPPORT of 48 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT . (Fagan, Stuart) Modified on 10/6/2008 (Kaminski, H). (Entered: 10/03/2008)
52 DECLARATION of Lorena Lingenfelter in SUPPORT of 48 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Fagan, Stuart) Modified on 10/6/2008 (Kaminski, H). (Entered: 10/03/2008)
53 DECLARATION of Regina Robidoux in SUPPORT of 48 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT. (Fagan, Stuart) Modified on 10/6/2008 (Kaminski, H). (Entered: 10/03/2008)
54 NOTICE OF LODGMENT re 48 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed by plaintiffs . (Fagan, Stuart) Modified on 10/6/2008 (Kaminski, H). (Entered: 10/03/2008)
55 EX PARTE APPLICATION by Eileen Wacker, Wayne Wacker, Wacker Family Trust, Christine Wacker for Order Continuing Hearing re Motion for summary judgment and Time to File Opposition to Motion for summary judgment. (Campbell, Mark) Modified on 10/15/2008 (Kaminski, H). (Entered: 10/14/2008)
56 OPPOSITION by pltfs. to 55 EX PARTE APPLICATION (Fagan, Stuart) Modified on 10/17/2008 (Kaminski, H). (Entered: 10/16/2008)
57 DECLARATION OF Stuart E. Fagan in support of [56 OPPOSITION (Fagan, Stuart) Modified on 10/17/2008 (Kaminski, H). (Entered: 10/16/2008)
58 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 10/17/08 ORDERING that the hearing on pltf's 48 motion for summary judgment is CONTINUED to 1/30/2009 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton; Oppositions or stements of non−opposition due no later than 12/22/08; Replies due no later than 1/5/09. (Yin, K) (Entered: 10/20/2008)
59 STIPULATION and [PROPOSED] ORDER re discovery and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment by Wacker Family Trust. (Campbell, Mark) Modified on 11/13/2008 (Mena−Sanchez, L). (Entered: 11/11/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-02334-LKK -DAD As of: 07/30/2012 09:43 AM PDT 8 of 11

11/14/2008
03/11/2009
03/20/2009 03/23/2009 03/23/2009 03/23/2009 03/23/2009 03/23/2009 03/23/2009 03/23/2009 03/23/2009 03/23/2009 03/23/2009 03/23/2009 03/30/2009 03/31/2009

60 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 11/14/08 GRANTING 59 Stipulation. The pretrial conference is set for 9/14/2009 at 02:30 PM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. Jury Trial set for 12/1/2009 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton.(Streeter, J) (Entered: 11/14/2008)
61 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 3/11/2009. Due to court congestion, plaintiff's 48 Motion for Summary Judgment is CONTINUED to 5/4/2009 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 4 (LKK). Oppositions or Statements of Non−Opposition shall be filed and served no later than 3/23/2009. Replies, if any, shall be filed and served no later than 3/30/2009. Also, due to an oversight, the 60 Order amending the 46 Scheduling Order omitted the Law and Motion cut−off date. Motions matters shall be noticed to be heard no later than 5/18/2009. (Marciel, M) (Entered: 03/11/2009)
62 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER Regarding Expert Witness Discovery by Wacker Family Trust. Attorney Scarborough, Tiffany P. added. (Scarborough, Tiffany) Modified on 3/24/2009 (Engbretson, K.). (Entered: 03/20/2009)
63 MEMORANDUM by Eileen Wacker, Wayne Wacker, Wacker Family Trust, Christine Wacker in Opposition to 48 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Campbell, Mark) Modified on 3/25/2009 (Engbretson, K.). (Entered: 03/23/2009)
64 RESPONSE by Eileen Wacker, Wayne Wacker, Wacker Family Trust, Christine Wacker to Pltfs' 50 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts. (Campbell, Mark) Modified on 3/25/2009 (Engbretson, K.). 50 (Entered: 03/23/2009)
65 STATEMENT by Eileen Wacker, Wayne Wacker, Wacker Family Trust, Christine Wacker of Additional Undisputed Facts in Opposition to 48 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Campbell, Mark) Modified on 3/25/2009 (Engbretson, K.). (Entered: 03/23/2009)
66 DECLARATION of Mark A. Campbell in Opposition to 48 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Campbell, Mark) Modified on 3/25/2009 (Engbretson, K.). (Entered: 03/23/2009)
67 DECLARATION of Wayne Wacker in Opposition to 48 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Campbell, Mark) Modified on 3/25/2009 (Engbretson, K.). (Entered: 03/23/2009)
68 DECLARATION of Eileen Wacker in Opposition to 48 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Campbell, Mark) Modified on 3/25/2009 (Engbretson, K.). (Entered: 03/23/2009)
69 DECLARATION of Dinesha Jackson in Opposition to 48 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Campbell, Mark) Modified on 3/25/2009 (Engbretson, K.). (Entered: 03/23/2009)
70 EXHIBIT A−B in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment. (Campbell, Mark) (Entered: 03/23/2009)
71 EXHIBIT C to Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment. (Campbell, Mark) (Entered: 03/23/2009)
72 EXHIBIT D−H in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment. (Campbell, Mark) (Entered: 03/23/2009)
73 EXHIBIT I in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment. (Campbell, Mark) (Entered: 03/23/2009)
74 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 3/27/09 ORDERING that 62 the parties' stipulated request to extend ddls related to expert witnesses is DENIED.(Kastilahn, A) (Entered: 03/30/2009)
75 NOTICE of SETTLEMENT by Regina Robidoux, Lorena Lingenfelter, Randall Reichenberg, Jr, Jesse Robidoux, Jesse J. Robidoux, Jr, Shaun Johnson, Hannah Burk, Michael Burk. Filing deadline: 4/23/2009. (Fagan, Stuart) (Entered: 03/31/2009)

Case: 2:06-cv-02334-LKK -DAD As of: 07/30/2012 09:43 AM PDT 9 of 11

04/01/2009
04/21/2009 04/21/2009 04/21/2009 04/21/2009 04/21/2009 04/21/2009 04/21/2009 04/21/2009 04/21/2009 04/24/2009 05/29/2009 05/29/2009
06/09/2009 06/09/2009 06/11/2009

76 ORDER re: Disposal Documents After Notification of Settlement, signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 4/1/09. Pltfs shall file a motion to approve the compromise of the claims of the minors involved WITHIN 20 days from the effective date of this order. All hearing dates heretofore set in this matter are hereby VACATED.(Kastilahn, A) (Entered: 04/01/2009)
77 MOTION to approve minors' compromises by Regina Robidoux, Lorena Lingenfelter. Motion Hearing set for 6/1/2009 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. (Fagan, Stuart) Modified on 4/22/2009 (Mena−Sanchez, L). (Entered: 04/21/2009)
78 MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities by Regina Robidoux, Lorena Lingenfelter in SUPPORT of 77 MOTION TO APPROVE MINORS' COMPROMISES. (Fagan, Stuart) Modified on 4/22/2009 (Mena−Sanchez, L). (Entered: 04/21/2009)
79 DECLARATION of Regina Robidoux in SUPPORT of 77 MOTION. (Fagan, Stuart) Modified on 4/22/2009 (Mena−Sanchez, L). (Entered: 04/21/2009)
80 DECLARATION of Lorena Lingenfelter in SUPPORT of 77 MOTION. (Fagan, Stuart) Modified on 4/22/2009 (Mena−Sanchez, L). (Entered: 04/21/2009)
81 DECLARATION of Stuart E. Fagan TUART E. FAGAN in SUPPORT of 77 MOTION. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit)(Fagan, Stuart) Modified on 4/22/2009 (Mena−Sanchez, L). (Entered: 04/21/2009)
82 DECLARATION of Christopher Brancart in SUPPORT of 77 MOTION. (Fagan, Stuart) Modified on 4/22/2009 (Mena−Sanchez, L). (Entered: 04/21/2009)
83 DECLARATION of Mary Scott Knoll in SUPPORT of 77 MOTION. (Fagan, Stuart) Modified on 4/22/2009 (Mena−Sanchez, L). (Entered: 04/21/2009)
84 NOTICE OF LODGMENT in SUPPORT of MOTION 77 ; DECLARATION of Shaun Johnson. (Fagan, Stuart) Modified on 4/22/2009 (Mena−Sanchez, L). (Entered: 04/21/2009)
85 [PROPOSED] ORDER Approving minors' compromise 77 and directing blocked accounts to be opened for minors' proceeds. (Fagan, Stuart) Modified on 4/22/2009 (Mena−Sanchez, L). (Entered: 04/21/2009)
86 STATEMENT of NON−OPPOSITION by dfts to Plaintiffs' 77 Motion for Approval of Minors' Compromises. (Campbell, Mark) Modified on 4/27/2009 (Duong, D). (Entered: 04/24/2009)
87 ORDER granting in part and denying in part, as provided in the order, 77 Pltfs' Motion for Approval of Minors' Compromises, signed by Judge Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 5/28/09. (Kastilahn, A) (Entered: 05/29/2009)
88 ORDER Approving Minors' Compromise and Directing Blocked Accounts to be Opened for Minors' Proceeds, signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 5/28/09. The Motion 77 is GRANTED and the compromise of the claims of Randall Reichenberg Jr., Jesse Rodidoux, Jr., Hannah Burk, and Michael Burk (Claimants) are approved. Pltfs' counsel shall provide each minor's bank or credit union with a copy of this Order, and shall, within 30 days, FILE with the Court a declaration verifying the opening of said blocked accts. (Kastilahn, A) (Entered: 05/29/2009)
89 MOTION for RECONSIDERATION re 87 Order and 88 Order by Regina Robidoux, Lorena Lingenfelter. Motion Hearing set for 08/03/09 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. (Fagan, Stuart) Modified on 7/8/2009 (Benson, A.). (Entered: 06/09/2009)
90 MEMORANDUM by Regina Robidoux, Lorena Lingenfelter in SUPPORT of 89 MOTION for RECONSIDERATION . (Fagan, Stuart) Modified on 6/10/2009 (Kaminski, H). (Entered: 06/09/2009)
91 NON−OPPOSITION by Eileen Wacker, Wayne Wacker, Wacker Family Trust, Christine Wacker to 89 MOTION for RECONSIDERATION. (Lewis, Luther)

Case: 2:06-cv-02334-LKK -DAD As of: 07/30/2012 09:43 AM PDT 10 of 11

06/30/2009 07/08/2009 08/07/2009 08/07/2009 08/10/2009
01/24/2011
02/14/2011
02/18/2011
03/31/2011 04/21/2011 06/07/2011
06/16/2011 06/16/2011 06/16/2011

Modified on 6/11/2009 (Kaminski, H). (Entered: 06/11/2009)
92 DECLARATION of Stuart E. Fagan in re 77 Motion to approve minors' compromises. (Fagan, Stuart) Modified on 7/8/2009 (Benson, A.). (Entered: 06/30/2009)
93 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 07/07/09 DENYING plfs' 89 Motion for Reconsideration. (Benson, A.) (Entered: 07/08/2009)
94 NOTICE of APPEAL by Regina Robidoux, Lorena Lingenfelter, Randall Reichenberg, Jr, Jesse Robidoux, Jesse J. Robidoux, Jr, Shaun Johnson, Hannah Burk, Michael Burk as to 93 Order, Order on Motion for Reconsideration. (Fagan, Stuart) (Entered: 08/07/2009)
RECEIPT number #CAE200019002 $455.00 fbo Jesse Robidoux by Stuart E. Fagan on 8/7/2009. (Mena−Sanchez, L) (Entered: 08/07/2009)
96 APPEAL PROCESSED to Ninth Circuit re 94 Notice of Appeal filed by Lorena Lingenfelter, Regina Robidoux, Randall Reichenberg, Jr., Shaun Johnson, Hannah Burk, Michael Burk, Jesse Robidoux, Jesse J. Robidoux, Jr.. Filed dates for Notice of Appeal *8/7/2009*, Complaint *10/23/2006* and Appealed Order / Judgment *7/8/2009*. ** *Fee Status: Paid on 8/7/2009 in the amount of $455.00* ** (Attachments: # 1 Appeal Notice, # 2 Certificate of Record) (Matson, R) (Entered: 08/10/2009)
97 (MEMORANDUM is WITHDRAWN per 99 USCA ORDER.) USCA MEMORANDUM as to 94 Notice of Appeal filed by Lorena Lingenfelter, Regina Robidoux, Randall Reichenberg, Jr., Shaun Johnson, Hannah Burk, Michael Burk, Jesse Robidoux, Jesse J. Robidoux, Jr. Decision of district court REVERSED and REMANDED. (Zignago, K.) Modified on 2/22/2011 (Kastilahn, A). (Entered: 01/24/2011)
98 (MANDATE IS RECALLED per 99 ORDER OF USCA.) MANDATE of USCA as to 94 ORDERING that the judgment of this Court, entered January 21, 2011, takes effect this date. This constitutes the formal mandate of this Court issued pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.(Duong, D) Modified on 2/22/2011 (Kastilahn, A). (Entered: 02/14/2011)
99 ORDER of USCA as to 94 Notice of Appeal, ORDERING that the 2/14/11 mandate was issued in error, and the mandate is recalled. The request for publication filed on 1/28/11 is GRANTED. The memorandum disposition filed on 1/21/11 is WITHDRAWN, and a superseding opinion will be filed in due course.(Kastilahn, A) (Entered: 02/22/2011)
100 USCA OPINION as to 94 Notice of Appeal: decision of district court REVERSED AND REMANDED (Benson, A.) (Entered: 03/31/2011)
101 USCA MANDATE as to 94 Notice of Appeal. The decision of the District Court is REVERSED AND REMANDED. (Mena−Sanchez, L) (Entered: 04/22/2011)
102 ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 6/6/11 ORDERING plaintiffs to file a new proposed settlement within fourteen (14) days of the issuanceof this order, for the court's review under the standard set out by the Ninth Circuit. Any opposition or statement of non−opposition shall be filed not later than ten (10) days thereafter. (Becknal, R) (Entered: 06/07/2011)
103 MOTION TO APPROVE MINORS' COMPROMISES re 101 USCA Judgment by Lorena Lingenfelter, Regina Robidoux. Motion Hearing set for 8/1/2011 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. (Fagan, Stuart) (Entered: 06/16/2011)
104 MEMORANDUM by Lorena Lingenfelter, Regina Robidoux in SUPPORT of 103 MOTION TO APPROVE MINORS' COMPROMISES re 101 USCA Judgment. (Fagan, Stuart) (Entered: 06/16/2011)
105 DECLARATION of STUART E. FAGAN in SUPPORT OF 103 MOTION TO APPROVE MINORS' COMPROMISES re 101 USCA Judgment. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Fagan, Stuart) (Entered: 06/16/2011)

Case: 2:06-cv-02334-LKK -DAD As of: 07/30/2012 09:43 AM PDT 11 of 11

06/21/2011
07/28/2011 07/28/2011 08/09/2011 08/19/2011

106 STATEMENT of NON−OPPOSITION by CDInvestment Properties dba Villa Serrano Apartments, Christine Wacker, Eileen Wacker, Wayne Wacker, Wacker Family Trust to 103 MOTION TO APPROVE MINORS' COMPROMISES re 101 USCA Judgment. (Lewis, Luther) (Entered: 06/21/2011)
107 PROPOSED ORDER Granting 103 Motion to Approve Minor's Compromises by Lorena Lingenfelter, Regina Robidoux. (Fagan, Stuart) Modified on 7/29/2011 (Duong, D). (Entered: 07/28/2011)
108 ORDER granting 103 Motion to Approve Minors' Compromises signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 7/28/2011. Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion currently set for 8/1/2011 is VACATED. (Waggoner, D) (Entered: 07/28/2011)
109 STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL by Christine Wacker, Eileen Wacker, Wayne Wacker, Wacker Family Trust. (Lewis, Luther) (Entered: 08/09/2011)
110 CLERK'S NOTICE of VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL pursuant to 109 Stipulation of Dismissal. CASE CLOSED. (Manzer, C) (Entered: 08/19/2011)

 
 638 F.3d 1177 (2011)
Jesse ROBIDOUX; Regina Robidoux; Lorena Lingenfelter; Randall Reichenberg, Jr., Minor, by and through the guardian ad litem Regina Robidoux; Shaun Johnson; Hannah Burk, Minor, by and through the guardian ad litem Lorena Lingenfelter; Michael R. Burk, Minor, by and through the guardian ad litem Lorena Lingenfelter, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. Brian ROSENGREN; Wacker Family Trust; Christine Wacker, Doing business as Villa Serrano Apartments; Eileen Wacker; Wayne Wacker; C & D Investment Properties dba
Villa Serrano Apartments, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-16674.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted November 5, 2010. Filed March 30, 2011.
1179 *1179 Stuart E. Fagan, Law Offices of Stuart E. Fagan, San Diego, CA, for the plaintiffs-appellants.
Before: JOHN T. NOONAN, RICHARD A. PAEZ, and CARLOS T. BEA, Circuit Judges.
OPINION
BEA, Circuit Judge:
This case calls upon us to determine the proper scope of review for a district court considering whether a proposed settlement of housing discrimination claims involving minor plaintiffs is fair and reasonable. PlaintiffsAppellants0907including minors and their guardians ad litem[1]0907appeal the district court's denial, in part, of their motion to approve a proposed settlement of Plaintiffs' housing discrimination claims against their former landlords, Wayne and Eileen Wacker ("Defendants"). The district court, exercising its special duty to protect the interests of litigants who are minors, rejected the settlement, as proposed, because the district court found the designation of 56% of the total settlement value to Plaintiffs' counsel "excessive" and unreasonable. Robidoux v. Wacker Family Trust, 2009 WL 1531785, at *5-6 (E.D.Cal. May 29, 2009). The district court then reduced Plaintiffs' counsel's award from $135,000.00 to $77,166.42 in fees and $8,500.73 in costs and approved the modified settlement. Id. at *6.
We reverse. Although the district court has a special duty to safeguard the interests of minor plaintiffs, that duty requires only that the district court determine whether the net amount distributed to each minor plaintiff in the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable, without regard to the proportion of the total settlement value designated for adult co-Plaintiffs and contracted by them with Plaintiffs' counsel. If the net recovery of each minor plaintiff under the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable, the district court should approve the settlement as proposed.[2]
Background
Plaintiffs were residents of the Villa Serrano Apartments in Carmichael, CA, which were owned and operated by Defendants. In addition to living in the Villa Serrano Apartments, Plaintiff Johnson also was a part-time resident property manager for the apartment complex. In 2006, Plaintiffs brought suit in federal district court against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal Fair Housing Act, the California Fair Housing and Employment Act, and state tort law. Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that, between December 2004 and September 2005, Defendants engaged in a consistent practice of discrimination against families with children, including: arbitrary

eviction of families with children; circulation of a written order telling tenants not to let their children play outside in the common area or ride bicycles, and that allowing their children to do so would lead to eviction; constant verbal 1180 harassment and threats to the children and parents; and further arbitrary action such as *1180 falsely reporting Plaintiffs' cars as illegally parked so they would be towed and refusing to accept timely rent payments from families.
At the time of the alleged discriminatory treatment, minor Randy Robidoux was five years old, and his ability to play outside in the apartment complex was affected by Defendants' actions. Minor Jesse Robidoux Jr. was less than one-year old at the time and was too young to play outside. At the time, minor Hannah Burk was three years old and was allowed to play outside on occasion, while minor Michael Burk was less than one-year old and did not play outside.
In their complaint, Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief; compensatory, punitive, and treble damages; and attorney's fees. Although none of the Plaintiffs required any medical or psychiatric treatment for the injuries they sustained, or showed any signs of ongoing stress, they claimed to have suffered:
[L]oss of important housing opportunities, violation of their civil rights, deprivation of full use and enjoyment of their tenancy, wrongful eviction, and severe emotional distress and physical injury, humiliation and mental anguish, including bodily injury such as stomach aches; head aches; sleep loss and sleeping too much; appetite loss; feelings of depression, discouragement, anger, and nervousness; and reliving the experience; and other special and general damages according to proof.
Complaint at 16. Plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages was based on Defendants' alleged intentional or reckless violation of Plaintiffs' civil rights. No specific special damages were alleged.
In 2008, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, but prior to resolution of the motion, the parties filed a notice of settlement and moved for the district court's approval of the compromise. Under the proposed settlement agreement, Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiffs a total of $240,000 in damages, attorney's fees, and costs, to be allocated as follows:
0905 $135,000 to Plaintiffs' Counsel Stuart Fagan (56.2%) 0905 $35,000 to Robidoux Family (14.6%) -$2,500 to minor Jesse Robidoux Jr. -$10,833.33 to minor Randy Robidoux -$10,833.33 to adult Regina Robidoux -$10,833.33 to adult Jesse Robidoux 0905 $35,000 to Lingenfelter Family (14.6%) -$2,500 to minor Michael Burk -$10,833.34 to minor Hannah Burk -$21,666.66 to adult Lorena Lingenfelter 0905 $35,000 to adult Shaun Johnson (14.6%)
Exercising its special duty to determine the fairness of a settlement of minors' claims, the district court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs' motion to approve the settlement. Most importantly for purposes of this appeal, the district court held that "an attorney's fees award of 56 percent of the total settlement amount [was] excessive and [did not] represent a fair compromise of the minors' claims." Robidoux, 2009 WL 1531785 at *6. Instead, the court found that it was "equitable" to award Plaintiffs' counsel only one-third of the net settlement value, after costs. This amounted to an award of $77,166.420907plus $8,500.73 in costs 0907instead of the $135,000.00 provided in the proposed settlement. With this modification of attorney's fees, the district court approved the settlement.
To determine the fairness of the settlement of the minors' claims, the district court applied state law. Id. at *4. In particular, the district court looked to the local rules of several California courts and concluded that "attorneys are 1181 typically awarded a maximum of 25 percent of the *1181 total settlement award of a minor's claim, less costs, unless there are extraordinary circumstances warranting a greater award." Id. at *5. The district court then found that Plaintiffs' counsel's performance was not sufficiently "extraordinary" to merit recovery of 56% of the total settlement.
Plaintiffs' timely appealed the partial denial of the settlement on the ground the district court applied the wrong legal standard in finding the attorney's fees were excessive.[3]

Standard of Review and Jurisdiction
This court reviews a district court's decision to approve or reject a proposed settlement for abuse of discretion. See In re Heritage Bond Litigation, 546 F.3d 667, 675 (9th Cir.2008).
[W]hen we review for abuse of discretion... we first look to whether the trial court identified and applied the correct legal rule to the relief requested. Second, we look to whether the trial court's resolution of the motion resulted from a factual finding that was illogical, implausible, or without support in inferences that may be drawn from the facts in the record.
United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1263 (9th Cir.2009) (en banc). This court has jurisdiction to review a district court's denial of a motion to approve a settlement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Analysis
District courts have a special duty, derived from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), to safeguard the interests of litigants who are minors. Rule 17(c) provides, in relevant part, that a district court "must appoint a guardian ad litem0907or issue another appropriate order0907to protect a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented in an action." Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(c). In the context of proposed settlements in suits involving minor plaintiffs, this special duty requires a district court to "conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the settlement serves the best interests of the minor." Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir.1978); see also Salmeron v. United States, 724 F.2d 1357, 1363 (9th Cir.1983) (holding that "a court must independently investigate and evaluate any compromise or settlement of a minor's claims to assure itself that the minor's interests are protected, even if the settlement has been recommended or negotiated by the minor's parent or guardian ad litem").
But this court has not provided district courts with specific guidance on how to conduct this independent inquiry, nor dictated whether district courts should consult state law in making such determinations. In the district courts in this Circuit, the typical practice has been to apply state law and local rules governing the award of attorney's fees, as the district court did here. See, e.g., Alvarado v. United States, 2010 WL 5418863 (E.D.Cal. Dec. 23, 2010); Hernandez v. Sutter Med. Ctr. of Santa Rosa, 2009 WL 1138713 (N.D.Cal. Apr. 27, 2009); Deja Marie J. v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 2006 WL 2348884 (N.D.Cal. Aug. 11, 2006).
However, this approach places undue emphasis on the amount of attorney's fees provided for in a settlement, instead of focusing on the net recovery of the minor plaintiffs under the proposed agreement. Inconsistency can 1182 be avoided if district courts limit the scope of their *1182 review to the question 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. Most importantly, the district court should evaluate the fairness of each minor plaintiff's net recovery without regard to the proportion of the total settlement value designated for adult co-plaintiffs or plaintiffs' counsel0907whose interests the district court has no special duty to safeguard. See Dacanay, 573 F.2d at 1078 (holding that it is "well settled in the usual litigation context that courts have inherent power summarily to enforce a settlement agreement" where the parties are not a protected class of litigants such as minors or class-action plaintiffs). So long as the net recovery to each minor plaintiff is fair and reasonable in light of their claims and average recovery in similar cases, the district court should approve the settlement as proposed by the parties.
Here, the district court abused its discretion by performing an overly broad review of the proposed settlement and considering factors and state court rules outside the narrow scope of the district court's review. Most importantly, the district court erred in rejecting the settlement on the basis that the provision of 56% of the total settlement value for attorney's fees was "excessive," and thus the settlement was not "fair and reasonable" to the minor plaintiffs. However, as explained above, the district court's special duty to protect minor plaintiffs requires only that the district court consider whether the net recovery of each minor plaintiff is fair and reasonable, without regard to the amount received by adult co-plaintiffs and what they have agreed to pay plaintiffs' counsel.

In other words, in this context, the fairness determination is an independent, not a comparative, inquiry. Thus, the district court erred when it focused on the admittedly large proportion of the total settlement value going to Plaintiffs' counsel, instead of reviewing the fairness of each minor's net recovery in isolation. We therefore reverse and remand for the district court to consider, in the first instance, whether the proposed net recovery of each of the four minor plaintiffs (as shown supra) is fair and reasonable in light of the facts of the case, each minor's claims, and typical recovery by minor plaintiffs in similar cases. If the net recovery of each minor plaintiff under the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable, the district court should approve the settlement as presented, regardless of the amount the parties agree to designate for adult co-plaintiffs and attorney's fees.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the district court's partial denial of the parties' motion to approve the proposed settlement. We remand with instructions for the district court to determine whether the net recovery of the four minor plaintiffs under the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable as to each minor plaintiff.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
[1] Plaintiffs consist of two families and an independent adult plaintiff: parents Jesse and Regina Robidoux, and their children Randy and Jesse Jr.; parent Lorena Lingenfelter, and her children Michael and Hannah Burk; and adult Shaun Johnson.
[2] Our holding is limited to cases involving the settlement of a minor's federal claims. We do not express a view on the proper approach for a federal court to use when sitting in diversity and approving the settlement of a minor's state law claims.
[3] Because both Plaintiffs and Defendants approved of the proposed settlement, no appellee brief was filed, nor did an adverse party appear at oral argument to defend the district court's ruling.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 JESSE ROBIDOUX; et al., Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. BRIAN ROSENGREN; et al., Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-16674
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 3393
February 18, 2011, Filed
NOTICE: PLEASE REFER TO FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 32.1 GOVERNING THE CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS.
PRIOR HISTORY: [*1] Eastern District of California, Sacramento. D.C. No. 2:06-cv-02334-LKK-DAD.
Robidoux v. Rosengren, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1217 (9th Cir. Cal., Jan. 21, 2011)
COUNSEL: For JESSE ROBIDOUX, REGINA ROBIDOUX, LORENA LINGENFELTER, RANDALL REICHENBERG, Jr., Minor, by and through the guardian ad litem Regina Robidoux guardian and litem Regina Robidoux, SHAUN JOHNSON, HANNAH BURK, Minor, by and through the guardian as litem Lorena Lingenfelter guardian ad litem Lorena Lingenfelter, MICHAEL R. BURK, Minor, by and through the guardian as litem Lorena Lingenfelter guardian ad litem Lorena Lingefelter, Plaintiffs - Appellants: Stuart Eric Fagan, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Stuart E. Fagan, San Diego, CA.
For WACKER FAMILY TRUST, Defendant - Appellee: Mark A. Campbell, Sacramento, CA; Luther R. Lewis, Esquire, JOHNSON SCHACHTER & LEWIS, A Professional Corporation, Sacramento, CA; Tiffany P. Scarborough, Esquire, Attorney, Murphy, Campbell, Guthrie & Alliston, Sacramento, CA.
For CHRISTINE WACKER, Doing business as Villa Serrano Apartments, EILEEN WACKER, WAYNE WACKER, Defendants - Appellees: Justin Scott Altmann, Murphy, Campbell, Guthrie & Alliston, Sacramento, CA; Mark A. Campbell, Sacramento, CA; Luther R. Lewis, Esquire, JOHNSON SCHACHTER & LEWIS, A Professional Corporation, Sacramento, [*2] CA.
For C&D INVESTMENT PROPERTIES DBA VILLA SERRANO APARTMENTS, Defendant - Appellee: Mark A. Campbell, Sacramento, CA; Luther R. Lewis, Esquire, JOHNSON SCHACHTER & LEWIS, A Professional Corporation, Sacramento, CA; Alesa Schachter, Attorney, JOHNSON SCHACHTER & LEWIS, A Professional Corporation, Sacramento, CA.
JUDGES: Before: NOONAN, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
OPINION
ORDER The mandate issued on February 14, 2011 was issued in error. The mandate is recalled. The request for publication
filed on January 28, 2011 is GRANTED. The memorandum disposition filed on January 21, 2011 is WITHDRAWN. A superseding opinion will be filed in due course.

 
 JESSE ROBIDOUX; et al., Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. BRIAN ROSENGREN; et al., Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-16674
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1217
November 5, 2010, Argued and Submitted, San Francisco, California January 21, 2011, Filed
NOTICE: PLEASE REFER TO FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 32.1 GOVERNING THE CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS.
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Opinion withdrawn by Robidoux v. Rosengren, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 3393 (9th Cir. Cal., Feb. 18, 2011) Superseded by Robidoux v. Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6485 (9th Cir. Cal., Mar. 30, 2011)
PRIOR HISTORY: [*1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. D.C. No. 2:06-cv-02334-LKK-
DAD. Lawrence K. Karlton, Senior District Judge, Presiding. Robidoux v. Wacker Family Trust, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49598 (E.D. Cal., May 28, 2009)
DISPOSITION: REVERSED AND REMANDED.
COUNSEL: For JESSE ROBIDOUX, MICHAEL R. BURK, Minor, by and through the guardian as litem Lorena Lingenfelter guardian ad litem Lorena Lingefelter, HANNAH BURK, Minor, by and through the guardian as litem Lorena Lingenfelter guardian ad litem Lorena Lingenfelter, SHAUN JOHNSON, RANDALL REICHENBERG, Jr., Minor, by and through the guardian ad litem Regina Robidoux guardian and litem Regina Robidoux, LORENA LINGENFELTER, REGINA ROBIDOUX, Plaintiffs - Appellants: Stuart Eric Fagan, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Stuart E. Fagan, San Diego, CA.
For WACKER FAMILY TRUST, Defendant - Appellee: Mark A. Campbell, Sacramento, CA; Luther R. Lewis, Esquire, JOHNSON SCHACHTER & LEWIS, A Professional Corporation, Sacramento, CA; Tiffany P. Scarborough, Esquire, Attorney, Murphy, Campbell, Guthrie & Alliston, Sacramento, CA.
For CHRISTINE WACKER, Doing business as Villa Serrano Apartments, WAYNE WACKER, EILEEN WACKER, Defendants - Appellees: Justin Scott Altmann, Murphy, Campbell, Guthrie & Alliston, Sacramento, CA; [*2] Mark A. Campbell, Sacramento, CA; Luther R. Lewis, Esquire, JOHNSON SCHACHTER & LEWIS, A Professional Corporation, Sacramento, CA.
For C&D INVESTMENT PROPERTIES DBA VILLA SERRANO APARTMENTS, Defendant - Appellee: Mark A. Campbell, Sacramento, CA; Alesa Schachter, Attorney, Luther R. Lewis, Esquire, JOHNSON SCHACHTER & LEWIS, A Professional Corporation, Sacramento, CA.
JUDGES: Before: NOONAN, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
OPINION
MEMORANDUM*
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Plaintiffs--including minors and their guardians ad litem--appeal the district court's denial, in part, of their motion to approve a proposed settlement of Plaintiffs' housing discrimination claims against their former landlords ("Defendants"). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse and remand.
In 2006, Plaintiffs brought suit in federal district court against Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.), the California Fair Housing and Employment Act, and other state tort claims. In 2008, the parties filed a notice of settlement and moved the district [*3] court for approval of the compromise. Under the proposed settlement agreement, Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiffs a total of $240,000 in damages, attorney's fees, and costs, to be allocated as follows:
* $135,000 to Plaintiffs' Counsel Stuart Fagan (56.2%)
* $35,000 to Robidoux Family (14.6%)
- $2,500 to minor Jesse Robidoux Jr. - $10,833.33 to minor Randy Robidoux - $10,833.33 to adult Regina Robidoux - $10,833.33 to adult Jesse Robidoux
* $35,000 to Lingenfelter Family (14.6%)
- $2,500 to minor Michael Burk - $10,833.34 to minor Hanna Burk - $21,666.66 to adult Lorena Lingenfelter
* $35,000 to adult Shaun Johnson (14.6%)
The district court, exercising its special duty to protect the interests of litigants who are minors, rejected the proposed settlement because it found the designation of 56% of the total settlement value to Plaintiffs' counsel "excessive" and "unreasonable." The court then awarded Plaintiffs' counsel $77,166.42 in fees and $8,500.73 in costs.
District courts have a special duty, derived from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), to safeguard the interests of litigants who are minors. See Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 1978). This special duty requires district [*4] courts to determine whether a proposed settlement of minors' claims is fair and reasonable to the minor plaintiffs. However, that special duty does not extend to adult co-plaintiffs in the action. Id. at 1078 (holding that it is "well settled in the usual litigation context that courts have inherent power summarily to enforce a settlement agreement" where the parties are not a protected class of litigants such as minors or class-action plaintiffs).
Therefore, in deciding a motion to approve a proposed settlement of minors' claims, the district court need determine only whether the net amount distributed to minor plaintiffs in the settlement is fair and reasonable. Here, the district court should have evaluated the fairness of the minor plaintiffs' net recovery in isolation, without regard to the proportion of the total settlement value designated for the adult co-plaintiffs or plaintiffs' counsel. If the net recovery of the minor plaintiffs under the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable, the district court should approve the settlement as presented.
We therefore reverse and remand with instructions for the district court to determine whether the net recovery of the four minor plaintiffs [*5] under the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable as to each minor plaintiff.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.