Abrams

Abrams v. Hills

Good Law
415 F. Supp. 550·1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15206
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaMay 6, 1976CV 75-3009-JWCCalifornia1,135 words

Opinion

Opinion

Curtis, J.

Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, seek to compel the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and certain officials thereof (hereinafter HUD) to implement the operating subsidy provisions of Section 236(f)(3) and (g) of the National Housing Act, as amended by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, 12 U.S.C. § 1715z-1(f)(3) and (g).

Jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361 . See, e. g., Elliott v. Weinburger, No. 74-1611 (9th Cir. Oct. 1, 1975). On December 19, 1975, this court entered Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and an Order granting the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. This cause now comes before the court on HUD’s motion for rehearing of plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.

The relevant portions of the Housing Act require that HUD “shall” establish an initial operating expense level comprised of utility and property tax expenses incurred by the owner of a federally subsidized housing project. HUD is then “authorized” to pay the housing project owner an operating subsidy for utility and property tax expenses which exceed the initial operating expense level. Additionally, the Housing…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.