Through our California Affordable Housing Law Project (CAHLP), we coordinate an ongoing statewide legal strategy to enforce California’s “fair share” housing element law, state and federal relocation assistance laws, and state redevelopment law. The resulting judgments and settlements have compelled counties and cities to zone for, initiate and finance the development of affordable housing throughout the state for California’s poorest households.
HOUSING LITIGATION
Housing Element
Peninsula Interfaith Action (PIA), et al, v. City of Menlo Park, San Mateo Superior Court (2012). Menlo Park had failed to adopt a housing element for over 20 years, in violation of housing element law. When Facebook sought zoning changes and approvals to expand its corporate campus in the city, a coalition of community members negotiated with Facebook for a community benefits agreement and with the City for adoption of an adequate housing element. The parties stipulated to a settlement and entry of judgment in favor of plaintiffs prior to filing suit. (Co-counsel with Public Advocates.)
Sacramento Housing Alliance v. City of Folsom, Sacramento Superior Court (2011). Petition for writ of mandate attacking the City’s repeal of its inclusionary zoning ordinance as inconsistent with its housing element, failure to amend its housing element to identify alternative programs to ensure its ability to achieve its quantified objectives, failure to implement several housing element programs, and deficiency of the housing element as a result of the City’s failure to amend zoning densities for sites it had identified to accommodate its regional housing needs allocation. The trial court ruled in favor of petitioners declaring the ordinance sunsetting its inclusionary zoning ordinance invalid, and ordering the City to comply with its housing element, including its inclusionary zoning ordinance. (Co-counsel with Legal Services of Northern California.)
Latinos Unidos del Valle de Napa v. Napa County, Napa County Superior Court (2010). Petition for writ of mandate and complaint challenging the failure of the County to adopt and implement an adequate housing element providing sufficient multifamily housing sites to accommodate the County’s share of the regional need for affordable housing. This case also raises fair housing claims. The trial court ruled against petitioners and the case is on appeal. (Co-counsel with California Rural Legal Assistance, Relman, Dane & Colfax PLLC, and Law Offices of David Grabill.)
Humboldt Sunshine, Inc. v. County of Humboldt, Humboldt County Superior Court (2008). Intervention on behalf of lower income tenants and local housing group in an action challenging the county’s housing element. The case settled with the trial court issuing a stipulated judgment requiring the County to rezone sites for multifamily housing development. (Co-counsel with Legal Services of Northern California and Law Offices of David Grabill.)
Urban Habitat Program v. City of Pleasanton, Alameda County Superior Court (2006); Urban Habitat Program v. City of Pleasanton, 164 Cal. App. 4th 1561 (1st Dist. 2008). Case on behalf of a community group and low income resident attacking the failure of the City to comply with its housing element and challenging the City’s growth cap initiative and growth cap ordinances for violating state housing element laws and fair housing laws. After the court of appeal upheld the validity of most of the claims, on remand the trial court ruled in favor of petitioners and struck down the growth cap. The case then settled, requiring the City to zone sufficient sites to accommodate multifamily housing to meet the City’s share of the regional need for affordable housing (Co-counsel with Public Advocates and Paul Hastings.)
Coplen v. County of Mendocino, Mendocino County Superior Court; First District Court of Appeal (2004; 2008). Petition for writ of mandate challenging County’s failure to adopt a housing element that makes sites available for development of sufficient affordable housing to meet the County’s share of the regional need. PILP assisted Legal Services of Northern California to achieve a settlement, including the recovery of disputed costs. The County agreed to rezone 50 acres for development of multifamily housing. (Co-counsel with Legal Services of Northern California, California Rural Legal Assistance, and Law Offices of David Grabill.)
Mejia v. City of Mission Viejo, Orange County Superior Court (2006). Petition for writ of mandate on behalf of low-income individual and an affordable housing organization challenging the adequacy of City’s housing element for failure to identify sufficient sites to accommodate lower income residential units, and its approval of a commercial and market-rate residential development on the last site the City had identified for affordable housing. Real parties in interest settled, and the Court issued a writ requiring the City to bring its housing element into compliance with state law. It also suspended the City’s land use powers with respect to three potential affordable housing sites. (Co-counsel with the Legal Aid Society of Orange County and the Public Law Center.)
Rogel v. City of Lynwood, Los Angeles County Superior Court (2006). Suit brought on behalf of mobile home park tenants in a park that was threatened with closure by the new owner who wanted to develop market rate condominiums. The closure of the park and subsequent evictions violated state mobilehome park laws, the City’s housing element, and state redevelopment and relocation assistance laws. Parties reached a settlement for the construction of at least 90 units of affordable housing, and a review procedure for all the redevelopment agency’s activities. (Co-counsel with Public Counsel, O’Melveny & Myers, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.)
Osorio v. Pittsburg, Contra Costa County Superior Court (2004). Suit challenging the failure of the City to timely adopt a housing element that makes sites available for the development of sufficient affordable housing to accommodate the City’s share of the regional need and to require redevelopment agency to comply with its affordable housing obligations. Settlement resulted in the Agency having to produce 990 lower income units with long-term affordability restrictions. (Co-counsel with Public Advocates.)
Saldana v. County of Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County Superior Court; U.S. Dist. Court, N.D. (2004). Litigation challenging the failure of the housing element to identify sufficient and adequate sites for multifamily housing to accommodate the County’s share of the regional need for affordable housing. Petitioners prevailed, and the Court ordered the County to bring the element into compliance, resulting in rezoning of sites where affordable housing has been developed. (Co-counsel with California Rural Legal Assistance.)
Fonseca v. City of Gilroy, Santa Clara County Superior Court (2004); 148 Cal.App.4th 1174 (6th Dist., 2007). Litigation challenging the adequacy of the City’s housing element because of its failure to rezone sites for multifamily housing to accommodate its share of the regional need. Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) determined the housing element to be out of compliance, but the trial court found that the element complied. The appellate court affirmed. (Co-counsel with Law Foundation of Silicon Valley and Public Advocates.)
Reyna v. City of Fillmore, Ventura County Superior Court (2003). Litigation attacking City’s failure to timely adopt an adequate housing element and approval of specific plan in the absence of a mandatory element of the general plan. Settlement called for the development of 28 farm worker units in downtown Fillmore. (Co-counsel with California Rural Legal Assistance.)
Deharo v. Napa County, Napa County Superior Court (2003). Litigation challenging the County’s failure to timely adopt an adequate housing element. Settled successfully with the County agreeing to rezone sites for affordable housing and farm worker housing, conduct a study of farm worker housing needs, and dedicate $15 million to the production of affordable housing. (Co-counsel with California Rural Legal Assistance and private counsel David Grabill and Neil Herring.)
Rios v. City of Camarillo, Ventura County Superior Court (2003). Suit sought injunction voiding the approval of a development agreement for the development of 1,100 units of housing in this community that had not adopted a housing element making provision for its need for affordable housing. The suit also sought a writ compelling the City to adopt an up-to-date element. Real Parties agreed to provide 98 units of very low and low income housing in Camarillo. (Co-counsel with Law Offices of Barbara Macri-Ortiz.)
Sonoma County Housing Action Group v. City of Santa Rosa, Sonoma County Superior Court (2002). Settlement and Order in suit challenging the failure of the City to adopt a housing element in compliance with state law. The settlement obligates the City to, among other things, adopt an affordable housing overlay zone entitling affordable housing developments to substantial increases in densities and “by right” approval. The settlement also requires the City to designate a specific site for development of a homeless shelter. (Co-counsel with Law Offices of David Grabill.)
Garcia v. Buellton, Central District of CA (2002). Action challenging an invalid housing element and violation of relocation assistance and replacement housing requirements of state redevelopment law. The consent decree requires the City to amend its housing element and rezone sites for the development of affordable housing in addition to comply with state relocation assistance and redevelopment laws. (Co-counsel with California Rural Legal Assistance.)
Marin Family Action v. Corte Madera, Marin County Superior Court (2002). Petition for writ of mandate and complaint for injunctive relief seeking an order compelling the Town to amend the housing element of its general plan to provide sites for multifamily development of affordable housing. A stipulated injunction prevented the Town from approving commercial or residential development until the housing element was brought into compliance. The Town failed to approve settlement, and we moved for and obtained judgment incorporating the provisions of the stipulated injunction. (Co-counsel with North Bay Legal Services.)
Hallfeldt v. City of Folsom, Sacramento County Superior Court (2002). Suit challenging Folsom’s ten year failure to adopt a housing element that provided sites and resources for and removed constraints to the development of housing to meet the City’s share of the regional need for housing affordable to low and very low income households. The advocacy began with a mediated pre-litigation settlement that went unfulfilled by the City. In the court action, we prevailed at trial on our housing element claim, the court ordering the City to bring its housing element into compliance with the law and enjoining development on 600 acres until a valid housing element was adopted. Settlement included adoption of inclusionary zoning ordinance, housing trust fund ordinance, and updated housing element. (Co-counsel with Legal Services of Northern California.)
Ross v. City of Fremont, Alameda County Superior Court (2002). Petition for Writ of Mandate challenging City of Fremont’s failure to adopt adequate housing element; to comply with least cost zoning laws; and raising fair housing violations. Action settled after City adopted significantly revised housing element approved by HCD, inclusionary zoning, density bonus, and second unit ordinances in compliance with state law. (Co-counsel with Law Center for Families.)
Mitchell v. City of Pasadena, Los Angeles County Superior Court (2002). Petition for Writ of Mandate challenging City of Pasadena’s failure to adopt adequate housing element; adoption of specific plan in absence of a housing element; and raising fair housing claims. The City adopted a housing element after the litigation was brought that the Court found complied with state law. (Co-counsel with Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles.)
Sonoma County Housing Action Group v. City of Rohnert Park, Sonoma County Superior Court (2001). Stipulated Judgment ordering the City to adopt a housing element in compliance with the law.
Community Housing Improvement Program v. City of Orland, District Court, E.D.C.A. (2001). Stipulated settlement and judgment compelling the City to identify and approve the development of 48 farmworker housing units by petitioners. The City had placed a moratorium on multifamily housing development on petitioner’s first site. (Co-counsel with California Rural Legal Assistance.)
Aldrich v. County of Sonoma, Sonoma County Superior Court (2000). Judgment for petitioners on claim for writ of mandate, compelling the County to revise and adopt a housing element that provides adequate sites to accommodate the County’s share of the regional need for affordable housing.
Renewed Hope Housing Advocates et. al. v. City of Alameda et. al., Alameda County Superior Court (2000). Stipulated Judgment on petitioners’ claim for writ of mandate, compelling the City to provide affordable housing on the site of the former Alameda Naval Air Station.
Gutierrez, et. al. v. City of Oxnard, et al., District Court, C.D.C.A (2000). Settlement of suit challenging the City’s adoption of a specific plan and failure to adopt an adequate housing element; court order compelling the City to facilitate the development of 94 units of affordable housing, to commit significant funds to affordable housing development, and to amend its housing element. (Co-counsel with California Rural Legal Assistance.)
Winterhawk v. City of Benicia, Solano County Superior Court; First District Court of Appeal (1999). Petition for Writ of Mandate challenging City’s failure to adopt and implement an adequate housing element. Stipulated Judgment, as modified, resulted in adoption of inclusionary zoning ordinance, rezoning of sites to accommodate high density multi-family units, production of approximately 100 low and very low income units, and adoption and implementation of several affordable housing programs. (Co-counsel with Legal Services of Northern California and Western Center on Law & Poverty.)
Diaz v. County of Sutter I & II, Sutter County Superior Court (1996; 1998). Suits challenging 1) the failure of the County to comply with CEQA in adopting its updated general plan, and 2) the failure of the County to implement the inclusionary zoning and other programs of its housing element; successfully settled with the County adopting an inclusionary zoning ordinance and stipulating to implement other programs. (Co-counsel with California Rural Legal Assistance.)
Guyton v. City of Alameda, Alameda Superior Court (1990; 2012). Writ of mandate attacking City’s adequacy of housing element and Measure A which prohibited multi-family housing development. Petitioners prevailed on housing element claims and summary adjudication of the attack on Measure A and entered into a settlement agreement providing for affordable housing development funds and an exception to Measure A. The settlement agreement is still in effect and enforcement activity is ongoing due to the dissolution of redevelopment agencies. (Co-counsel with the former Legal Aid Society of Alameda County and Law Center for Families.)
Orosco v. County of Solano, Solano County Superior Court. Parties brought suit to challenge the County’s failure to adopt a housing element revision. County adopted a housing element after the litigation was brought that the court found complied with state law. (Co-counsel with Legal Services of Northern California and Western Center on Law & Poverty.)
Redevelopment, Anti-Displacement and Relocation
California Redevelopment Assoc. v. Matosantos, 53 Cal. 4th 231 (2011). Amicus brief in original proceeding before the California Supreme Court. The California Redevelopment Association (CRA) attacked the adoption by the Legislature of ABx1 26 and ABx1 27, which eliminated all redevelopment agencies in California unless the agencies through their sponsoring local governments agree to pay part of their tax increment funds to the state to assist with addressing the budget shortfall in this and succeeding years. The Court upheld ABx1 26 and struck down ABx1 27 effectively precluding the continued operation of any redevelopment agency and replacing the agencies with successor agencies to perform remaining enforceable obligations. (Co-counsel with Western Center on Law & Poverty, Public Counsel, Legal Services of Northern California, and California Rural Legal Assistance.)
Manzo v. Hall Vineyard Property, LLC, Northern District Court (2010). Suit attacking the attempt by winery to close a mobile home park on winery property occupied principally by farmworkers. Plaintiffs allege that the proposed closure violates state mobile home park laws and federal and state fair housing laws. Case settled successfully. (Co-counsel with California Rural Legal Assistance and Relman, Dane & Colfax PLLC.)
Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, 638 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2010). Representing Amicus Curiae non-profit housing developers appealing district court decision finding the owner of a mobilehome park can maintain a facial takings challenge against a mobilehome rent control ordinance. The Court en banc overturned the district court ruling. (With co-counsel National Housing Law Project and Legal Services of Northern California.)
Limon v. Garden Grove Agency for Community Redevelopment, Orange County Superior Court (2009). Writ challenging the failure of the Agency 1) to provide adequate relocation assistance to residents of an RV park, 2) to replace the homes destroyed at the RV park by Agency action and 3) to produce the required affordable housing units within its redevelopment areas. (Co-counsel with Public Counsel and Fulbright & Jaworski.)
Arroyo Vista Tenants Association v. City of Dublin, et al., U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D. Cal. (2007). Action challenged disposition of 150 public housing units in violation of U.S. Housing Act, state and federal relocation laws, and state and federal fair housing laws. Court determined that plaintiffs have notice and relocation assistance rights enforceable through 42 U.S.C. §1983. 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41167 (N.D. Cal. May 22, 2008). Case settled requiring redevelopment of 129 family units and 49 senior units with long-term affordability restrictions, accessibility requirements, and a right of return for all Arroyo Vista residents. (Co-counsel with Bay Area Legal Aid.)
Fontana Redevelopment Agency v. Interested Parties, Orange County Superior Court (2003); 153 Cal.App.4th 902 (4th Dist., 2007). Appeal of trial court decision in validation action challenging Agency’s attempt to validate a bond issuance because it exceeded the Agency’s debt limit and because the Agency had failed to comply with its affordable housing obligations; action also challenged the Agency’s attempt to validate an agreement with the state purportedly settling an audit involving the Agency’s misappropriation of approximately $60 million of low and moderate income housing funds earmarked for affordable housing. (Co-counsel with Western Center on Law & Poverty, Inland Counties Legal Services, and Law Offices of Cory Briggs.)
Mandeville v. Stockton, San Joaquin Superior Court (2006). Litigation challenging the adequacy and implementation of a relocation assistance plan for a downtown residential hotel. Action dismissed after the individual plaintiff was relocated to a decent and affordable home. (Co-counsel with California Rural Legal Assistance and Western Center on Law & Poverty.)
De La Pena v. City of La Quinta, Riverside County Superior Court (2004). Action challenging Redevelopment Agency’s acquisition and closure of a mobile home park that provided affordable homes for approximately 100 Latino families. The Agency amended its relocation assistance plan, provided relocation benefits ranging from $40,000 to $70,000 for individual plaintiffs, and replaced the mobile home park with an affordable rental development. (Co-counsel with California Rural Legal Assistance and Western Center on Law & Poverty.)
Hom v. International Hotelier, Alameda County Superior Court (2003). Lawsuit challenging the attempted premature conversion of 50 affordable housing units in Oakland’s Chinatown in violation of redevelopment agreement. Plaintiffs defeated defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and reached a settlement that will preserve 50 affordable units. (Co-counsel with East Bay Community Law Center.)
Wiggins v. Community Redevelopment Agency of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Superior Court (2002). Consolidated reverse validation action challenging LA-CRA’s amendment and adoption of downtown redevelopment plans that failed to comply with low and moderate housing provisions of the Community Redevelopment Law; threatened the loss of thousands of downtown lower income units (many of them single room occupancy hotels) and the displacement of thousands of lower income persons without adequate replacement housing and relocation assistance plans. Achieved a stipulated judgment that includes Agency’s adoption of policies requiring replacement of over 5,000 residential hotel units if removed for redevelopment; relocation assistance benefits for all persons displaced; a “no net loss” policy to preserve over 7,000 downtown lower income units, and a job training and hiring program for local residents. (Co-counsel with Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles.)
Avila v. City of Gilroy, U.S. Northern District Court (2002). Suit challenging the failure of the City under state and federal law to provide adequate relocation assistance and replacement housing to tenants displaced from a single room occupancy building that was rehabilitated with redevelopment funds. (Co-counsel with California Rural Legal Assistance.)
Price v. City of Stockton & Stockton Redevelopment Agency, E.D. Cal. (2002); 390 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2004) and 394 F.Supp.2d 1256 (E.D. Cal. 2005). Action challenging City and Agency’s closure and threatened closure of most downtown Stockton single room occupancy hotels and displacement of hundreds of lower income residents, many of them persons with disabilities. Secured preliminary injunctions preventing demolition or conversion of SRO’s without plan to replace the units; preventing further displacement without plan for relocation assistance; and requiring relocation assistance for all persons displaced prior to injunction. Stipulated judgment required Agency to provide over $1.4 million in relocation assistance benefits and to replace 340 extremely low income dwellings. (Co-counsel with California Rural Legal Assistance-Stockton, Western Center on Law & Poverty, and Relman & Associates.)
Clearlake Housing Now v. Redevelopment Agency of City of Clearlake, District Court, N.D.C.A. (1999; 2008). Judgment and Order Approving Stipulated Settlement requiring the Agency to 1) provide replacement housing units and relocation assistance payments after causing the closure of a mobile home and recreational vehicle park, 2) replenish the Agency affordable housing fund to level prior to improper expenditures. In 2008, after the Agency failed to comply with portions of the judgment, plaintiffs negotiated an amended judgment requiring the Agency to 1) pay a penalty for retaining an “excess surplus” of low and moderate income housing funds, and 2) reimburse its low and moderate income housing funds for the monies it had improperly loaned to the city. (Co-Counsel with Senior Law Project.)
Lagunas v. Stockton Redevelopment Agency, U.S. Dist. Court, E.D. (1998). Action challenged Stockton’s “gateway” redevelopment project that sought to demolish four single-room occupancy hotels and displace the residents to make way for a McDonald’s and a gas station. Action was resolved by settlement requiring the adoption of replacement housing plans and relocation assistance benefits for the residents to be displaced. (Co-counsel with California Rural Legal Assistance.)
Sisters of the Holy Family v. City of Fremont, Alameda County Superior Court (1996). Challenge of the City’s failure to approve 105 unit affordable housing complex as a violation of state anti-NIMBY (Not-In-My-Backyard) laws, CEQA and fair housing laws; settled with the City agreeing take action after a supplementary environmental review; the project was subsequently built.
La Raza Unida v. Volpe, U.S. Northern District Court (1972). Post consent decree issues arose because the City of Hayward and State wanted to sell the surplus properties available due to the proposed rescission of the Route 238 right of way. Worked with the CalTrans Tenants Organization and legislative representatives and reached an accord with the City and Caltrans on protections for tenants and others. (Co-counsel with the former Legal Aid Society of Alameda County.)
Inclusionary Zoning
California Building Industry Association v. City of San Jose, Santa Clara County Superior Court (2011); on appeal to 6th Appellate District. Representing Interveners on behalf of the City in this suit where the CBIA alleges that San Jose’s recently adopted inclusionary zoning law on constitutional grounds. (Co-counsel with Law Foundation of Silicon Valley and Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati.)
Trinity Park L. P. v. City of Sunnyvale, 193 Cal.App.4th 1014 (2011). Representing successful Amicus Curiae on behalf of the City in this appeal upholding the trial court order dismissal of a developer’s challenge to Sunnyvale’s inclusionary zoning ordinance. (Co-counsel with Law Foundation of Silicon Valley.)
Building Industry Association of Central California v. City of Patterson, 171 Cal.App.4th 886 (2009). Represented California organizations of non-profit housing developers in request (unsuccessful) to the California Supreme Court for depublication of this decision, holding that a unique and unrepresentative affordable housing “impact in-lieu fee” was not reasonably related to the purported impact.
Palmer/Sixth Street Properties v. Los Angeles, 175 Cal.App.4th 1396 (2009). Represented Amicus Curiae on behalf of the City in Court of Appeal; our position was rejected however, the court holding that California’s Costa Hawkins Act allowing landlords to set initial rents on new construction in rent control jurisdictions also preempts local inclusionary zoning laws from imposing rent limitations on inclusionary units in new rental developments. (Co-counsel with Public Counsel and the American Civil Liberties Union.)
Building Industry Association of Superior California v. Sacramento County, Sacramento County Superior Court (2005); 3rd Dist. Court of Appeals (2007). Intervened in case in which the Building Industry Association filed a constitutional challenge to the County’s recently adopted inclusionary zoning ordinance. Prevailed on Motion for Judgment, settled upon the BIA dismissing its appeal. (Co-counsel with Legal Services of Northern California.)
Homebuilders of Northern California v. City of Napa, Napa County Superior Court; 90 Cal.App.4th 188 (2001, 1st Dist.). Intervened on City of Napa’s behalf to defend inclusionary zoning ordinance adopted by City. Prevailed by demurrer along with the City in our defense of the City’s inclusionary zoning ordinance which requires 10% of the units in new developments to be affordable to very low, low and moderate income households. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court decision and the Homebuilders’ petition for review in the California Supreme Court was denied. The Homebuilders petition for certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court was denied. (Co-counsel with Legal Aid of Marin County, Western Center on Law & Poverty, and the Howard Rice law firm.)
FEMA Benefits
National Low Income Housing Coalition v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security, D.D.C. (2007). Freedom of Information suit to compel FEMA to disclose disaster relief information relating to its mismanagement of rental assistance and recoupment programs. (Co-counsel with Morrison & Foerster.)
Ridgley v. FEMA, (E.D. La. 2007). Nationwide class certification and preliminary injunction enjoining FEMA from (1) issuing incomprehensible notices terminating rental assistance, (2) failing to provide notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard prior to termination, (3) aid paid pending an appeal challenging the termination of assistance, (4) issuing incomprehensible notices seeking recovery of previously paid benefits, (5) failing to provide notice to recipients subjected to recoupment actions of an opportunity to compromise their claims or obtain a waiver based on hardships, and (6) failing to provide adequate hearings on appeal. FEMA appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and, pending its decision, the Fifth Circuit temporarily stayed the district court order. (Co-counsel with Weil, Gotshal & Manges; Texas Appleseed, National Center for Law and Economic Justice, and National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty.)
Brou v. FEMA, U.S. District Court, E.D. Louisiana (2006). (Co-counsel with LA Protection & Advocacy and National Center for Law and Economic Justice.)
Watson v. FEMA, 437 F.Supp.2d 638 (S.D. Tex. 2006); 2006 WL 3402613. Nationwide class action on behalf of persons displaced by Hurricanes Katrina & Rita enjoining FEMA’s failure to provide coverage for utilities but order was vacated by the 5th Circuit. (Co-counsel with private firm and several non-profits.)
McWaters v. FEMA, 408 F.Supp.2d 221 (E.D.La., 2005); 436 F.Supp.2d 802; 237 F.R.D. 155. Nationwide class action brought on behalf of victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, enjoined FEMA from terminating emergency shelter assistance for hundreds of thousands of evacuees who were temporarily housed in federally subsidized hotels, motels and apartments. (Co-counsel with the National Lawyers’ Committee on Civil Rights and private counsel.)
Other Housing Civil Rights Cases
Washington v. Mallah; Mayo v. Rent Razor, Alameda County Superior Court (2004). Consolidated class action lawsuit challenging private landlords’ failure to refund security deposits to recipients of Section 8 rental assistance. Resulted in approved class action settlement to refund security deposits with interest to class members pursuant to claims process.
Mercy Charities v. Dept. of Housing & Community Development, San Francisco Superior Court (1998). Judgment enjoining Department of Housing and Community Development from implementing immigrant eligibility and verification requirements in numerous housing and community development programs. (Co-counsel with Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights.)