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

2,152 chars

Morton also challenges the scope of the injunction, arguing
that it must be limited to proscribing it from terminating Ten-
ants in order to raise the rent. The district court enjoined “De-
fendant and any of its agents from failing to allow the
Enhanced Voucher Plaintiffs to remain at Morton Gardens
with enhanced voucher assistance,” and “from evicting or ter-
minating the tenancy or lease of all Plaintiffs without comply-
  8
    Amicus California Apartments Association argues that LARSO is pre-
empted by California Civil Code § 1954.535, an issue not raised by Mor-
ton on appeal. Morton has thus waived the issue, see United States v.
Gementera, 379 F.3d 596, 607-08 (9th Cir. 2004), and we typically “do
not consider on appeal an issue raised only by an amicus.” Engine Mfrs.
Ass’n v. S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., 498 F.3d 1031, 1043 (9th Cir.
2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, we do not address
Amicus’s argument on the merits.
  9
    Because we do not affirm the district court’s invalidation of HUD’s
regulation, we need not decide whether the district court’s decision on that
ground should be applied only prospectively.
14452        BARRIENTOS v. 1801-1825 MORTON LLC
ing with all the requirements of [LARSO].” Tenants respond
that Morton did not object to the scope of the injunction
before the district court and, therefore, has waived the objec-
tion. See Ritchie v. United States, 451 F.3d 1019, 1026 n.12
(9th Cir. 2006) (concluding that failure to raise an issue
before the district court waives it on appeal when the issue
involves an exercise of the district court’s discretion and the
district court “might have been able to deal with the prob-
lem”); see also Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. New Images of
Beverly Hills, 321 F.3d 878, 883 (9th Cir. 2003) (“This issue
is . . . raised for the first time on appeal, and we cannot enter-
tain the argument because further factual development would
be required.”). We agree with Tenants that Morton waived the
objection to the scope of relief by failing to raise it before the
district court. Accordingly, we decline to address it. C.      Attorney’s Fees

Other Sections in This Document (60)

Full Text