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
Mendonsa v. Lowell Housing Authority
No. 01-2034C (Mass. Super. Ct. Suffolk County December 30, 2005) ; Clearinghouse Number: 54284
Description
Low-Income Families Oppose City’s Motion to Dismiss Their Challenge to Planned Demolition of Public Housing Development
Abstract
Plaintiffs—low-income families who are or may be applicants
for defendant housing authority–administered public
housing—opposed defendant city’s motion to dismiss
their challenge to the planned demolition of a 284-unit family
public housing development in Massachusetts. A statewide nonprofit
housing organization is also a plaintiff. In this class action,
plaintiffs contended that city and housing authority already took
the necessary first steps toward demolition by moving families out
of the development and refusing to rent vacant units to families on
the waiting list. They alleged that defendants’ actions
violated state law, which imposes strict conditions as a
prerequisite to demolition. They further alleged that, under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, defendants unlawfully used community block
grant development funds in furtherance of the demolition, that
defendants violated the one-for-one replacement of lower-income
housing and relocation assistance requirements of section 104(d) of
the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, and that the
proposed demolition would violate federal civil rights laws. The
court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
Opposing dismissal, plaintiffs argue that city bears joint
responsibility for development plan provisions that fail to meet
state legislative criteria, that city spent significant amounts of
federal funds in connection with the development’s
demolition, and that Congress unambiguously intended that when
community development block grant funds are used to plan and
implement demolition of low-income housing and demolition results
in displacement, section 104(d) replacement and relocation benefits
are triggered.
Additional Information
Files
- Amended Complaint
- Plaintiff's Memo In Support Of Their Motion For Preliminary Injunction
- Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion To Dismiss
- Plaintiff's Supplemental Opposition To Motion To Dismiss
- Plaintiffs' second motion for partial summary judgment against defendants Lowell Housing Authority and City of Lowell
- Memorandum of law in support of plaintiffs' second motion for partial summary judgment against defendants Lowell Housing Authority and City of Lowell
- Declaration of Nancy McArdle
- Plaintiffs' reply to defendant Lowell Housing Authority 's opposition to plaintiff's second motion for partial summary judgment
- Reply affidavit of Nancy McArdle concerning discriminatory effects of JDS relocation
- Rulings on plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs' motion to strike, and defendants' motion to strike
