Price v. City of Stockton

No. Civ. S-02-65 LKK/KJM (E.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2005) ; Clearinghouse Number: 54800

Description

Court Grants Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Preliminary Injunction Order to Enjoin Vacating, Demolishing, or Converting Residential Hotels

Abstract

The district court granted plaintiffs’ motion to amend a 2002 preliminary injunction order prohibiting demolition of single-room occupancy residential hotel units in the absence of adequate relocation assistance or replacement housing plans. Plaintiffs allege that defendants removed the units from the affordable housing market in 2001 and 2002; the amended injunction will “remain in effect until defendants adopt and implement a replacement housing plan and relocation assistance plan” as required by California’s Community Redevelopment Law. Plaintiffs contend that defendants’ aggressive code enforcement actions and subsequent closure and threatened demolition of substandard residential hotels are all part of defendants’ redevelopment plan. In granting plaintiffs’ motion, the court ruled that defendant redevelopment agency could not escape its Community Redevelopment Law obligations “simply because the City, and not the Agency, led the code enforcement … campaign.” The court found the code enforcement to be part of the redevelopment plan and therefore allowed plaintiffs to seek to hold the redevelopment agency liable. That the written redevelopment plan did not specifically call for code enforcement and closing of single-room occupancy residential hotel units did not absolve defendants. Because defendants should have adopted a replacement housing plan years ago, ascertained the income level of displaced tenants, and ensured that displaced persons received priority for replacement housing, and plaintiffs submitted evidence that defendants failed to meet these obligations, the court held that plaintiffs had “overwhelmingly” shown a likelihood of success on the merits. The court said that, despite defendants’ contention to the contrary, to understand that plaintiffs faced irreparable injury in the absence of relief did not “take more than common sense.” The court did not address plaintiffs’ claims of disparate impact on persons with disabilities and on recipients of public benefits.

Additional Information

Attorney Information
Plaintiff represented by Kristina Burrows, Amy Choi, Stephanie E. Haffner, California Rural Legal Assistance, 242 N. Sutter St. #411, Stockton, CA 95202 (209.946.0609); Michael Rawson, Deborah Collins, California Affordable Housing Law Project of the Public Interest Law Project, 449 15th St., Suite 301, Oakland, CA 94612 (510.891.9794); S. Lynn Martinez, Western Center on Law & Poverty, 449 15th St., Suite 301, Oakland, CA 94612 (510.891.9794).
Docket Date
2005-08-09 00:00:00+00:00
Attorney Email
dcollins@pilpa.org