Park Village Apartment Tenants Ass'n v. Mortimer Howard Trust
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 3683
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Park Village tenants are elderly, low-income residents of a former project-based, HUD-subsidized Section 8 complex; the owners sought to raise rents to market rate after expiration of HUD contracts.
- Tenants have a statutory right to remain in their units and to pay only the statutorily determined tenant contribution when enhanced vouchers are used.
- Enhanced vouchers pay the difference between the tenant's contribution and rent, potentially exceeding the usual Section 8 payment standard.
- Owners refused to accept enhanced vouchers or enter into Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) contracts with the local PHA, threatening eviction for nonpayment.
- District court issued a preliminary injunction: prohibitory relief barring evictions and increased rents absent vouchers; mandatory relief to enter into HAP contracts with the PHA.
- The Ninth Circuit held the prohibitory relief appropriate but vacated the mandatory injunction requiring HAP contracts, and remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1437f(t) creates a right to remain against owners. | Park Village tenants have a statutory right to remain. | Owners argue no right to remain beyond notice-based protections. | Yes; tenants have a right to remain under § 1437f(t). |
| Whether § 1437f(c)(8) notice conflicts with the right to remain. | Right to remain harmonizes with notice requirements. | Notice could permit eviction after the grace period. | Yes; harmonization confirms right to remain with proper notice. |
| Whether the injunction against evictions and rent increases was proper. | Injunction prevents eviction in light of enhanced vouchers. | Injunction improperly bars lawful actions. | Prohibitory injunction affirmed; sufficient likelihood of irreparable harm. |
| Whether the district court properly issued a mandatory injunction to enter HAP contracts. | HAP contracts are necessary to implement enhanced vouchers. | No obligation to enter HAP contracts absent explicit statutory requirement. | District court abused its discretion; vacate mandatory injunction. |
| What standard governs the district court’s injunction in this statutory enforcement action. | Winter standard applies; irreparable harm established by likely eviction. | Mandatory injunctions require even stricter showing; harms speculative. | Winter standard governs; injunctions must be tailored to actual harms. |
Key Cases Cited
- Feemster v. BSA Ltd. P'ship, 548 F.3d 1063 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (tenants' right to remain enforceable against owners)
- Barrientos v. 1801-1825 Morton, LLC, 583 F.3d 1197 (9th Cir. 2009) (tenants' right to remain under enhanced vouchers)
- Winter v. NRDC, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (irreparable harm required for injunctions; not mere possibility)
- Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 2009) (mandatory injunctions are disfavored; need clear harms)
- United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc; proper tailoring of injunctions; rule identification)
- Sundance Land Corp. v. Cmty. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 840 F.2d 653 (9th Cir. 1988) (irreparable harm and injunction standards)
- Odessa Union Warehouse Co-op, 833 F.2d 172 (9th Cir. 1987) (equitable remedies depend on case-specific needs)