Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

San Pedro Hotel Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 159 F.3d 470 (1998)

Citation
San Pedro Hotel Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 159 F.3d 470 (1998)
Parent Document
San Pedro Hotel Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 159 F.3d 470 (1998)
Effective Date
1998-11-06

Other Sections in This Document (64)

Full Text

878 chars
As potential sellers of the property who were unable to sell their property to a buyer because of the City’s allegedly improper interference with an HUD loan, the Fentises meet this test. Indeed, the Fentises are in a similar position to other parties who have been held to have standing under the Act. Dirden v. Department of Housing and Urban Dev., 86 F.3d 112, 114 (8th Cir.1996) (landowner attempting to sell property allowed to state a claim under the Act alleging discriminatory intent in city housing authority’s refusal to negotiate); Oak Ridge Care Ctr., Inc. v. Racine County, 896 F.Supp. 867, 873 (E.D.Wis.1995) (seller of elderly care facility under existing nonconforming use agreement has standing under the Act); United States v. Scott, 788 F.Supp. 1555, 1561 (D.Kan.1992) (sellers of property who *476lost sale because of discriminatory practices have standing).