§ 1437f

Citation: § 1437f
Parent Document: Nozzi v. Housing Authority, 806 F.3d 1178 (2015)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2015-11-30
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3158630/nozzi-v-housing-authority/ ↗

Full Text

869 chars

On appeal, a different panel of this Court reversed. Nozzi
v. Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (“Nozzi I”)
(mem.), 425 F. App’x 539 (9th Cir. 2011). With regard to the
plaintiffs’ due process claims, we held that the district court
“improperly concluded that plaintiffs’ property interest in
Section 8 benefits did not require adequate notice that their
benefits were subject to the planned reduction.” 425 F.
App’x at 541. To begin with, the plaintiffs had a “well-
settled property interest” in Section 8 benefits because “the
statute, in tandem with regulatory requirements ‘restrict[ing]
the discretion’” of the Housing Authority, “protected against
an abrupt and unexpected change in benefits.” Id.11 We
remanded for the district court to apply the Mathews v.
Eldridge balancing test to determine if the Housing
Authority’s notice was sufficient.12 Id.

Other Sections in This Document (154)

Full Text