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
Chicago Acorn v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
No. 05C3049 (N.D. Ill. filed Aug. 10, 2005) ; Clearinghouse Number: 55889
Description
Section 8 Tenants' Supplemental Complaint Alleges that New Federal Housing Appropriations Law Requires HUD to Maintain Section 8 Subsidies on Foreclosed Project-Based Section 8 Property
Abstract
Project based section 8 tenants filed a class action suit to
prevent HUD from illegally terminating the project based section 8
contract on 1,240 housing units at Lawndale Restoration properties
after foreclosure. Plaintiffs allege that HUD’s actions will
result in a permanent loss of scare subsidized housing resources
and the illegal displacement of low income residents. Plaintiffs
allege that a new federal housing appropriations law requires HUD
to maintain the project-based Section 8 assistance after
foreclosure and to offer the foreclosed property to the City of
Chicago with the pre-existing Section 8 contract intact.
Specifically, plaintiffs allege that § 311 of the
Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the
Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies
Appropriations Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-115, 119 Stat. 2396
(November 30, 2005) requires HUD to maintain subsidies in place at
project based section 8 properties after foreclosure, unless HUD
determines that maintaining such subsidies is “not
feasible”. Plaintiffs also allege that the Multi-Family
Housing Property Disposition Reform Act of 1994, 12 U.S.C.
1701z-11, mandates that HUD dispose of “multifamily housing
projects” in a manner that addresses affordable housing
goals. Plaintiffs allege that HUD has arbitrarily instituted a new
policy that all project based Section 8 contracts are to be
terminated upon foreclosure. Plaintiffs allege that HUD is required
to affirmatively further fair housing within its programs.
Plaintiffs seek preliminary and permanent injunctive relief.
Additional Information
Files
- Complaint
- Motion for Preliminary Injunction
- Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction
- Amended Complaint
- Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
- Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of Its Motion for Class Certification
- Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint
- Memorandum in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
- Exhibit A to Defendant's Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss
- Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
- Defendants' Reply Memorandum in Support of Their Motion to Dismiss
- Plaintiffs' Citation of Supplemental Authorities
- Memorandum and order
- Notice of filing and appellants' docketing statement
- Appellants' motion to expedite briefing and oral argument
- Order
- Defendants-appellees' response to appellants' motion to expedite briefing and oral argument
- Brief and required short appendix of plaintiffs-appellants
- Short appendix of plaintiffs-appellants (memorandum and order)
- Separate appendix of plaintiffs-appellants
- Emergency motion to remand in light of intervening law
- Appellants' response to emergency motion to remand in light of intervening law
- Government's reply to appellants' response to emergency motion to remand
- Order
- Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint
- Supplemental complaint
