Barrientos v. 1801-1825 Morton LLC (2009)

Citation: Barrientos v. 1801-1825 Morton LLC (2009)
Parent Document: Barrientos v. 1801-1825 Morton LLC (2009)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2009-10-09
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3065171/barrientos-v-1801-1825-morton-llc/ ↗

Full Text

1,497 chars

The district court exercised jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1331 and 1367(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review a grant of summary judgment de novo.
Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1052 (9th Cir. 2002). We
review a grant of permanent injunctive relief for abuse of dis-
cretion, Ting v. AT&T, 319 F.3d 1126, 1134-35 (9th Cir.
2003), and an award of attorney’s fees for abuse of discretion,
Tahara v. Matson Terminals, Inc., 511 F.3d 950, 952 (9th Cir.
2007), reviewing factual findings for clear error, and legal
conclusions de novo, Ting, 319 F.3d at 1134-35; Tahara, 511
F.3d at 952.
  2
    Because our analysis turns on the construction of a HUD regulation,
following oral argument we invited HUD to express its position on the fol-
lowing question:
      Do local eviction controls, such as the Los Angeles Rent Stabili-
      zation Ordinance, L.A. Mun. Code section 151.09A, pose an
      obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full pur-
      poses and objectives of HUD’s definition of “good cause” to ter-
      minate assisted tenancies as including the desire to raise rents, set
      forth in 24 C.F.R. § 982.310(d)[(1)](iv)?
The United States, appearing on behalf of HUD through the U.S. Depart-
ment of Justice, filed a Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Sup-
porting Affirmance of the District Court’s Judgment.
               BARRIENTOS v. 1801-1825 MORTON LLC                     14437
                         III.    DISCUSSION

Other Sections in This Document (60)

Full Text