Hattix v. District of Columbia Housing Authority (2025)

Citation: Hattix v. District of Columbia Housing Authority (2025)
Parent Document: Hattix v. District of Columbia Housing Authority (2025)
Jurisdiction: DC (municipal)
Effective Date: 2025-05-01
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10437471/hattix-v-district-of-columbia-... ↗

Full Text

1,323 chars

3
          Though the parties also disagree about whether Mr. Hattix violated
provision 18.1.6—the provision stating that lessees may “not engage in any violent
criminal activity” and may not, “except as permitted by District of Columbia Law,
be in possession of any firearms or ammunition for a firearm”—we agree with the
associate judge that the magistrate judge based her decision on Mr. Hattix’s
violation of the one-strike provision, not the separate firearm provision. In any
event, the firearm provision, which is governed by D.C. law rather than federal
law, requires DCHA to provide the tenant an opportunity to cure—which DCHA
did not offer Mr. Hattix here. D.C. Code § 42-3505.01(b). Compare Scarborough,
890 A.2d at 258 (concluding that federal law preempted D.C. law with respect to
the right to cure for violations of the federal one-strike provision), with Pratt v.
D.C. Hous. Auth., 942 A.2d 656, 661 (D.C. 2008) (holding that “§ 42–3505.01(b)
reflects no distinction between obligations of tenancy criminal in nature and others;
unless limited otherwise by the D.C. Code (or by federal law . . .), it guarantees an
opportunity to correct all such lease violations”). This opinion therefore focuses
on Mr. Hattix’s alleged violation of the one-strike provision.
                                          8

Other Sections in This Document (196)

Full Text