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

1,314 chars 
To better frame our analysis, we consider the two parts of
the district court’s injunction separately. The first part of the
injunction (Sections V.A and V.B of the district court’s order)
bars Defendants from increasing the individual Plaintiffs’ rent
unless Defendants accept enhanced vouchers, and further bars
Defendants from evicting tenants so long as the Plaintiff ten-
ants continue to pay their out-of-pocket Section 8 contribu-
tion. This portion of the district court’s injunction is
“prohibitory” in nature, since it “prohibits a party from taking
action and preserves the status quo pending a determination
of the action on the merits.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v.
Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 878 (9th Cir.
2009) (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). The
           PARK VILLAGE v. MORTIMER HOWARD TRUST            2921
second part of the injunction (section V.C of the district
court’s order) requires Defendants to “take all steps necessary
to enter into and execute housing assistance payment con-
tracts with the Oakland Housing Authority for the acceptance
of tenant based vouchers.” This part of the injunction is “man-
datory” in nature, since it “orders a responsible party to take
action.” Id. at 879 (internal quotation marks omitted). 1.   Prohibitory Injunction