Shepherd v. WELDON MEDIATION SERVICES, INC.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71448
W.D. Wash.2011Background
- SHA administers public housing and Section 8 programs and is governed by the Housing Act and HUD regulations establishing tenants' grievance rights.
- Weldon Mediation Services, not an attorney, acts as SHA's hearing officer for most non-Section 8 termination grievances since 2002.
- RAC and tenants allege Weldon is biased, that he excludes legal arguments, and that SHA failed to consult resident organizations before appointing him.
- HUD moves to dismiss as a party; Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction to bar Weldon from presiding over hearings until training and reforms occur.
- Court analyzes statutory/grievance framework, finds policy prohibiting legal arguments likely unlawful, and considers whether injunctive relief is warranted and the scope of the HUD dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Weldon is biased against tenants or their counsel. | Weldon favors SHA and is biased against RAC/tenant attorneys. | Weldon is impartial; perceived bias due to outcomes does not prove bias. | Likely not proven bias; some evidence of partiality toward the tenant group is possible but insufficient. |
| Whether SHA/Weldon violate law by not considering tenants' legal arguments in hearings. | SHA policy excludes legal arguments, violating 24 C.F.R. § 966.56-57 and state laws. | Procedural rules require fairness; substantive arguments may be restricted at informal hearings. | Likely to succeed; policy to exclude legal arguments violates grievance-law requirements. |
| Whether Weldon is currently qualified to serve as a hearing officer. | Weldon lacks training in substantive landlord-tenant law; not qualified. | Impartiality suffices; formal legal training not required. | Likely to succeed; current lack of training in applicable law renders him unqualified. |
| Whether SHA violated HUD regulations by not consulting resident organizations before appointing Weldon. | SHA failed to consult RAC as required before appointment. | Consultation is permitted but not required to veto; still valid appointment possible. | Likely to succeed; SHA did not consult resident organizations before appointment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (established modern standard for preliminary injunctions (Winter/Alliance framework))
- Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) (serious-questions version of sliding-scale injunction remains viable after Winter)
- In re Judicial Conduct and Disability, 517 F.3d 558 (U.S. Jud. Conduct & Disability 2008) (courts may dismiss misconduct claims based on merits-related issues; not prima facie bias)