Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Henry Horner Mothers Guild v. Chicago Housing Authority
No. 91 C 3316 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 31,2001).; Clearinghouse Number: 46823
Description
District Court Denies Motion for Contempt Against Housing Authority and Its Manager but Encourages Face to Face Communication Between Parties
Abstract
The court denied plaintiffs’ motion to hold defendant Chicago Housing Authority and its management company in contempt for failure to comply with the terms of the amended consent decree. However, the court clarified that the management company was within the court’s contempt power and stated that it “needs to make some adjustments.” Plaintiffs asserted that defendants failed to communicate or cooperate with the residents’ committee and plaintiffs’ counsel, as the consent decree required. Plaintiffs claimed specifically that defendants failed to
inform them about the tenant assignment process, skipped over families who had already been approved and should be placed first in vacant units, obstructed the Section 8 relocation process by failing to certify families as lease compliant so that they could begin relocation counseling, failed to furnish supporting documents
in “for cause” eviction cases; violated the split family policy by threatening to evict class members who sought their own housing units, conducted housekeeping inspections without consulting plaintiffs and contrary to the terms of tenants’ leases, unilaterally implemented an automobile parking and towing
policy, and sought unilaterally to impose a mandatory program linking residents to social services. The court described the last dispute as the most serious; plaintiffs alleged that the program raised a conflict of interest based on its relationship with a commissioner of defendant housing authority. The court asked the parties to agree on language clarifying that the program was voluntary and that other social service providers would also be available. The court also stated its general expectation that
defendants would include the residents’ committee and plaintiffs’ counsel in decision making and refrain from “announc[ing] policy as a fait accompli.
Additional Information
Files
- Complaint
- Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
- Memo in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
- Response of Defendants CHA and Vincent Lane to Motion for Class Certification
- Federal Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
- Reply Memo in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification
- Federal Defendants' Answer
- Motion to dismiss of the CHA and Vincent Lane
- Memo in Support of Motion to dismiss of the CHA and Vincent Lane
- Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants CHA and Vincent Lane
- Memo Opinion and Order
- Memo Opinion and Order
- Consent Decree
- Notice of Proposed Settlement
- Order Conditionally Approving Consent Decree & Approving notice to the Plaintiff Class
- Memo opinion and order
- Agreed Order [Reported as 51864C]
- Motion to Hold in Contempt and for Injunctive Relief
- Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Their Motion to Hold CHA and PM One in Contempt and for Injunctive Relief, and Plaintiff's Response to CHA's Motions
- Memorandum Opinion and Order
- Plaintiffs' motion to file a sur-reply in support of their motion to hold CHA and PM ONE in contempt and for injunctive relief
- Plaintiffs’ motion to file an additional appearance on behalf of the plaintiff class [Reported as 51864B]
