Section 8

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

Full Text

1,933 chars

[7] With respect to the prohibitory portion of the injunc-
tion, the district court correctly determined that Plaintiffs
were likely to succeed on the merits because § 1437f(t)(1)(B)
confers on the individual Plaintiffs a right to remain in their
rental units. The district court also correctly determined that
the individual Plaintiffs were likely to suffer irreparable harm
absent preliminary relief because they faced eviction from
their rental units. Defendants communicated an intention to
charge market rates for the individual Plaintiffs’ apartments,
and Plaintiffs demonstrated an inability to pay those market
rates. Defendants have further voiced an intention to refuse to
accept enhanced vouchers, and to evict Plaintiffs for non-
payment of market rates. It is well-established that the loss of
an interest in real property constitutes an irreparable injury.
See McNeill v. N.Y. C. Hous. Auth., 719 F. Supp. 233, 254
(S.D.N.Y. 1989) (holding that risk of eviction from Section 8
housing satisfies irreparable injury prong of preliminary
injunction test) (collecting cases); accord Sundance Land
Corp. v. Cmty. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 840 F.2d 653,
661 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding that threatened foreclosure of
real property gave rise to “immediate, irreparable injury”).
Given the district court’s factual findings regarding the likeli-
hood of eviction, it reasonably concluded that Defendants’
threat to evict Plaintiffs created a likelihood of irreparable
harm in the absence of an injunction barring future evictions.
See, e.g., Enyart v. Nat’l Conf. of Bar Exam’rs, Inc., Nos. 10-
15286, 10-16392, 2011 WL 9735, at *11 (9th Cir. Jan. 4,
2011) (“Because the district court’s finding of irreparable
2922       PARK VILLAGE v. MORTIMER HOWARD TRUST
harm . . . is supported by facts in the record, it does not consti-
tute an abuse of discretion.”); Dominguez v. Schwarzenegger,
596 F.3d 1087, 1098 (9th Cir. 2010).

Other Sections in This Document (141)

Full Text