111 F. Supp. 3d 1148
D. Nev.2015Background
- Zimbelman disclosed on his application that he was a registered sex offender; the Housing Authority admitted him after a preliminary background check and he lived in public housing ~7 months.
- The lease expressly allowed termination if a household member has a conviction for a sexual offense subject to Nevada registration; it also included a non-waiver clause and required waivers to be in writing and signed by the Housing Authority.
- The Housing Authority later learned of Zimbelman’s registrant status from police records and issued a termination notice; Zimbelman received both informal and formal hearings and was denied relief.
- Zimbelman sued, arguing the Housing Authority waived or is estopped from enforcing the termination clause and that termination violated his due process rights; both parties moved for summary judgment.
- The court treated the contract and constitutional arguments on summary judgment, viewing facts in favor of Zimbelman as the nonmoving party but concluding no triable issues warranted relief for him.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Housing Authority is estopped from enforcing termination for registrant status | Zimbelman: Housing Authority’s delay and conduct led him to reasonably rely and suffer detriment, so estoppel bars termination | Housing Authority: No representations or detrimental reliance shown; lease warned of termination and reserved rights | Court: Estoppel not established — Zimbelman failed to prove reliance, ignorance of facts, or reasonable belief Authority waived rights |
| Whether non-waiver clause/waiver prevents termination for registrant status | Zimbelman: Non-waiver clause unenforceable due to negligent admission and unreasonable delay; public policy disfavors enforcement | Housing Authority: Non-waiver clause is valid; clause and lease language reserve right to enforce later; delay was reasonable under circumstances | Court: Non-waiver clause enforceable; no triable issue that clause should be disregarded; termination permissible |
| Whether termination violated procedural or substantive due process | Zimbelman: He was denied adequate process and HUD/ statute interpretations do not permit termination for registrant status | Housing Authority: Provided hearings and explanations; termination is "good cause" under 24 C.F.R. § 966.4 and HUD guidance supports termination of mistakenly admitted registrants | Court: Procedural process was adequate; on substance, termination was for good cause and HUD’s interpretation is reasonable and entitled to deference; no due process relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment and evidence standard)
- Merrill v. DeMott, 951 P.2d 1040 (Nev. 1997) (estoppel in landlord-tenant context)
- Consumers Distributing Co. v. Hermann, 564 P.2d 181 (Nev. 1977) (limits on enforcing non-waiver after unreasonable delay)
- Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (deference to agency interpretation of its regulations)
- Barrientos v. 1801-1825 Morton LLC, 583 F.3d 1197 (9th Cir. 2009) (respecting agency guidance)