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

1,590 chars

[5] It is true that no regulation expressly allows the opera-
tion of local eviction controls on assisted tenancies, while a
HUD regulation expressly subjects section 8 rent reasonable-
ness determinations to local rent control. See 24 C.F.R.
§ 982.509. That regulation, however, is a specific directive to
local PHAs in setting reasonable rent. The lack of a similar
express directive to state courts to apply local eviction con-
trols in determining whether good cause exists to evict
assisted tenants, aside from the questionable permissibility of
such a directive, does not itself suggest that state courts
should reject local eviction controls. In fact, the preemption
of LARSO would nullify 24 C.F.R. § 982.509, because an
14442         BARRIENTOS v. 1801-1825 MORTON LLC
owner would be able to escape rent control by evicting tenants
in order to raise their rent. In other words, as Tenants persua-
sively argue, the preemption of local eviction controls by
HUD’s “good cause” regulation would lead to absurd results
in a vacancy decontrol jurisdiction like California, because it
would make assisted tenants special victims of eviction by
landlords desiring to take advantage of vacancy decontrol to
raise rents. We refuse to construe “[l]egislative enactments
. . . as establishing statutory schemes that are illogical, unjust,
or capricious.” Bechtel Constr., Inc. v. United Bhd. of Car-
penters, 812 F.2d 1220, 1225 (9th Cir. 1987). Thus, the dis-
trict court correctly held that HUD did not specifically intend
to preempt local eviction laws with its “good cause” regula-
tion.

Other Sections in This Document (60)

Full Text