DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Section 8

Citation
Section 8
Parent Document
Park Village Apartment Tenants Ass'n v. Mortimer Howard Trust, 636 F.3d 1150 (2011)
Effective Date
2011-02-25
Original Source
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/205533/park-village-apartment-tenants-a... ↗

Other Sections in This Document (141)

Full Text

1,143 chars 
By requiring Defendants to enter a HAP contract with the Oakland Housing Authority, the district court’s injunction violates all three of these principles governing injunctive relief. First, Plaintiffs have not made any showing that they are *1161likely to be harmed by the Defendants’ failure to enter HAP contracts. Absent such evidence of Plaintiffs’ likely injuries, Plaintiffs have satisfied neither the baseline Winter standard nor the heightened standard we have adopted with respect to mandatory injunctions. See, e.g., Marlyn Nutraceuticals, 571 F.3d at 879-80 (vacating mandatory injunction where record failed to establish harm). In addition, absent any harm relating to the HAP contracts, the district court’s injunction is overbroad because it is not tailored to remedy the Plaintiffs’ actual harms, which are limited entirely to Defendants’ threats of eviction, not Defendants’ threats to refuse enhanced vouchers. See, e.g., United States v. BNS Inc., 858 F.2d 456, 466 (9th Cir.1988) (modifying injunction to reduce hardship to defendant while continuing to “eliminate the harm ... at issue in the [plaintiffs] ... complaint”).