Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

§ 1437f

Citation
§ 1437f
Parent Document
Nozzi v. Housing Authority, 806 F.3d 1178 (2015)
Effective Date
2015-11-30

Other Sections in This Document (154)

Full Text

740 chars
The district court and the Housing Authority heavily rely
on Rosas v. McMahon, 945 F.2d 1469 (9th Cir. 1991) to
support the argument that the plaintiffs do not have a
protected property interest, but that case is inapplicable. In
Rosas, the local agency provided notice of a change to
welfare benefits 10 days before its implementation, as
required by a regulation. Id. at 1472. The plaintiffs insisted
that they were entitled to an earlier notice about which the
statutes and regulations said nothing. Id. at 1474. This court
rejected the plaintiffs’ claim and held that welfare recipients
had no right to notice of the “passage of statutes” which
reduced their benefits or to a “grace period” before benefits
were reduced. Id. at 1473–74.