HAYES v. HARVEY
2:15-cv-02617
E.D. Pa.Dec 11, 2019Background
- Plaintiffs filed a declaratory and injunctive action seeking relief against landlord Philip E. Harvey and moved for summary judgment; the court ultimately denied the motion and dismissed the complaint against Harvey with prejudice.
- Core legal dispute: whether tenants holding "enhanced vouchers" under 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(t) are subject to the eviction "good cause" grounds set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(o)(7).
- Harvey contends he seeks to terminate tenancy for "good cause" — to renovate his unrenovated unit and move family members into it — not for purely business/economic reasons or as pretext.
- Harvey points to HUD guidance and the United States (as amicus) which treat enhanced vouchers as generally governed by standard Housing Choice Voucher rules, including eviction for "serious or repeated lease violations, violations of law, or other good cause."
- Harvey also argues plaintiffs are not entitled to attorney's fees because neither the lease nor any federal or state statute authorizes fee-shifting; Pennsylvania and federal "American Rule" principles deny fees absent statute or contract.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of §1437f(o)(7) eviction grounds to enhanced-voucher tenants | Enhanced-voucher tenants cannot be evicted except for serious/repeated lease violations (tenant-misconduct focus) | Enhanced-voucher tenants are generally treated like standard vouchers; §1437f(o)(7)'s "good cause" eviction grounds apply | Court denied plaintiffs' motion and dismissed complaint, adopting defendant's position that good-cause eviction grounds apply to enhanced vouchers |
| Motivations for eviction (business/economic pretext vs. renovation/family move-in) | Owner is seeking eviction for business/economic reasons/pretext | Owner seeks eviction for legitimate good cause: unit renovation and move-in of family; other similar units already renovated | Court accepted defendant's factual position sufficient to deny plaintiffs' summary judgment and dismissed complaint against Harvey |
| Right to recover attorney's fees | Plaintiffs implicitly seek fees based on prevailing in declaratory relief | No lease or statute authorizes fee-shifting; Pennsylvania and federal law bar fees absent statute/contract | Plaintiffs were not awarded attorney's fees; court denied plaintiffs' motion and dismissed claims against Harvey |
Key Cases Cited
- Barrientos v. 1801-1825 Morton, LLC, 583 F.3d 1197 (9th Cir. 2009) (interpreting enhanced-voucher statute with deference to HUD guidance that eviction grounds apply)
- Fed. Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389 (2008) (agency interpretations of ambiguous statutory terms entitled to deference)
- Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997) (deference to an agency's interpretation of its own regulations)
- Board of Trs., Roofers Local No. 30 Combined Welfare Fund v. Int'l Fidelity Ins. Co., 63 F. Supp. 3d 459 (E.D. Pa. 2014) (discussing the American Rule that attorney's fees are not recoverable absent statute or contract)
- Bayne v. Smith, 965 A.2d 265 (Pa. Super. 2009) (Pennsylvania rule denying attorney's fees absent statute or contractual provision)