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

1,472 chars

[8] The district court also properly evaluated the balance of
hardships and the public interest together. See Cal. Pharma-
cists Ass’n, 596 F.3d at 1114-15 (considering these factors in
tandem). The court concluded that the individual Plaintiffs’
risk of eviction, the fact that Defendants would not be unduly
burdened by the proposed injunction because they would con-
tinue to receive market value rent for their rental units, and
the public’s interest in compliance with the Section 8 statute,
all militated in favor of preliminary relief. None of these find-
ings was clearly erroneous. The hardship of eviction on
elderly low-income tenants is self-evident. Defendants, in
contrast, will only suffer hardship if they refuse to execute
HAP contracts with Oakland Housing Authority; otherwise,
they are guaranteed rents that are “reasonable in comparison
with rents charged for comparable dwelling units in the pri-
vate, unassisted local market.” 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(o)(10)(A).
In light of the district court’s observation that Defendants
“could identify no specific terms in the HAP contract which
were objectionable,” the court did not abuse its discretion in
balancing the parties’ relative hardships. Nor was the court’s
conclusion that the public interest favored entry of the prelim-
inary injunction an abuse of discretion. “[I]t is obvious that
compliance with the law is in the public interest.” N.D. v.
Haw. Dep’t of Educ., 600 F.3d 1104, 1113 (9th Cir. 2010).

Other Sections in This Document (141)

Full Text