Sicuro

Sicuro v. Hills

Good Law
415 F. Supp. 553·1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15057
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaMay 17, 1976CV 75-3439-JWCCalifornia1,151 words

Opinion

Opinion

Curtis, J.

In this class action, plaintiffs seek to compel the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and certain officials thereof (hereinafter HUD) to implement the rent supplement provisions of the Housing and Urban Development Act and the operating subsidy provisions of the National Housing Act, as amended respectively by the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970 and the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, 12 U.S.C. § 1701s and 12 U.S.C. §' 1715z-1(f)(3) and (g).

The facts of this case are not in dispute. Plaintiffs are all tenants of Woodland Terrace Apartments, a federally subsidized housing project. The owners of this housing project requested that they be allowed to increase the plaintiffs’ rent because, among other reasons, their utility and property tax expenses were increasing. HUD granted this request and the plaintiffs were notified of the proposed rent increase.

Plaintiffs have never enjoyed the benefits of the rent supplement payments provided by 12 U.S.C. § 1701s nor have they received the benefits of the operating subsidy provided by 12 U.S.C. § 1715z-l(f)(3) and (g). Indeed, HUD has not even established the initial operating expense level for…

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.