Nozzi v. Hous. Auth. of L. A.

Decision Date30 November 2015
Docket NumberNo. 13–56223.,13–56223.
Citation806 F.3d 1178
PartiesMichael NOZZI, an individual; Nidia Pelaez, an individual; Los Angeles Coalition to End Hunger and Homelessness, a non-profit organization, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF the CITY OF LOS ANGELES; Rudolph Montiel, in his official capacity, Defendants–Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Barrett S. Litt(argued), Kaye, McLane, Bednarski & Litt, LLP, Pasadena, CA; Patrick Dunlevy, Lisa R. Jaskol, Stephanie Carroll, Public Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, for PlaintiffsAppellees.

Roy G. Weatherup(argued) and Brant H. Dveirin, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for DefendantsAppellees.


REINHARDT, Circuit Judge:

The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program provides rental assistance to the most vulnerable members of our society. For many, especially those in areas with a high cost of living, the continuous receipt of these benefits is the only means through which Section 8 beneficiaries and their families can obtain safe, affordable housing. For those on a fixed income or those living paycheck to paycheck, any unexpected decrease in the subsidy can result in homelessness. For this reason, the program contains procedural protections designed to ensure that beneficiaries have at least a full year to plan for certain changes that may decrease the beneficiary's subsidy and increase the rent that they will have to pay.

Plaintiffs are the putative class representatives of a group of tenants who receive rent subsidies through the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. They assert that the Defendants, the local administrators of the Voucher Program, reduced the amount of Section 8 beneficiaries' subsidies without providing adequate notice, in violation of federal and state law. We agree. Accordingly, we reverse the grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants, direct that summary judgment be entered in favor of the plaintiffs, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. Statutory and Regulatory Background
A. Overview of the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program

In 1974, Congress created the Section 8 housing program in order to “aid [ ] low-income families in obtaining a decent place to live” and “promot[e] economically mixed housing.” Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, Pub.L. 93–383 § 201(a), 88 Stat. 633, 622–66 (1974) (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 1437f). For over four decades, the program has provided rental assistance to low-income, elderly, and disabled families. See generally Park Village Apartment Tenants Ass'n v. Mortimer Howard Trust,636 F.3d 1150, 1152 (9th Cir.2011).

The majority of federal housing assistance takes place through the Housing Choice Voucher Program, which subsidizes the cost of renting privately-owned housing units. 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(o ). The Voucher Program is funded and regulated by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development, and it is administered at the local level through “public housing agencies.” 24 C.F.R. § 982.1(a).

The public housing agencies determine whether individuals are eligible to participate in the program. 24 C.F.R. § 982.201. When an individual is approved, the public housing agency gives that person a voucher which entitles him to search for qualifying privately-owned housing. 24 C.F.R. § 982.302. When a voucher-possessing individual finds a qualifying unit, the unit owner and public housing agency will negotiate and enter into a housing assistance payment contract, which inter aliaspecifies the maximum monthly rent that the unit owner may charge. 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(c). After that contract has been formed, the public housing agency will make subsidy payments to the unit owner on behalf of the tenant.1

An extensive set of statutory provisions and regulations governs the calculation of the subsidy that must be paid on behalf of each tenant. See42 U.S.C. § 1437f(o ); 24 C.F.R. § 982.501 et seq.To begin with, the Department of Housing and Urban Development must set the fair market rent for established geographic areas across the United States. 24 C.F.R. § 982.503(a)(1). The public housing agency must use this fair market rent to create a local voucher “payment standard” for each of the areas in its jurisdiction. 24 C.F.R. § 982.503(b)(1)(I). A payment standard is the maximum subsidy payment that the housing agency will provide for each type of apartment in the area. Id.It must generally be set between 90 percent and 110 percent of the fair market rent for the area. 24 C.F.R. § 982.503(b)(1)(i).2

All tenants are responsible for contributing 30% of their monthly adjusted income or 10% of their gross monthly income, whichever is greater. 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(c)(2)(A).3Tenants whose rental units cost more than the payment standard have a higher expected contribution. Such tenants must alsopay any amount by which their rent exceeds the established payment standard. 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(o )(2)(B).4In either case, the subsidy covers the balance of the rent.

B. Procedures for Decreasing the Payment Standard

Practically, the formula for calculating a tenant's expected rent contribution means that a decision by the public housing agency to increase the payment standard will generally yield larger subsidies. By contrast, a decrease in the payment standard will generally decrease subsidies and may increase the rental contribution of a substantial number of tenants.5

To avoid any hardship caused by this change, the Department of Housing and Urban Development's regulations are designed to ensure that beneficiaries have a one-year period of stable benefits in which to plan for changes to the payment standard that may adversely affect their subsidy amount and rent contribution. Each year, the public housing agency conducts annual examinations of each beneficiary, usually on the anniversary of the beneficiary's entry into the Section 8 program, to verify his continued eligibility for benefits and to calculate his expected rent contribution for the current year. 24 C.F.R. § 982.516. Alterations to a tenant's benefits may occur due to circumstantial changes, such as adjustments to the tenant's income, family composition, or cost to rent his apartment, but the regulations limit the discretion of public housing agencies to lower subsidies based on adjustments to the payment standards. If the public housing agency decides to lower the payment standards, it must provide information about the change to all beneficiaries at their annual reexaminations following the decision, and must further advise these beneficiaries that the change will not go into effect until their following reexamination one year later. See24 C.F.R. § 982.505(c)(3).

This requirement provides some measure of financial stability for vulnerable Section 8 beneficiaries as it protects against sudden decreases in subsidy at the whims of the public housing agency. Absent any changes to a beneficiary's circumstances, he can be assured that his subsidy will renew with, at a minimum, the same terms as the prior year unless he had previously been warned that the public housing agency has taken an action that could adversely affect his subsidy. The regulations cast this warning in terms of the public housing agency's duty to provide information to the beneficiary that the payment standard has been decreased, to be effective at least a year afterward. Thus, under that mandatory procedure, the beneficiary necessarily has an expectation in an unaffected one-year term of benefits following the warning in which to plan for the change's potential adverse impact.

II. Factual and Procedural Background
A. Implementation of the 2004 Payment Standard Decrease

The Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (Housing Authority) administers the Voucher Program for that city.6In 2004, the Department of Housing and Urban Development required the Housing Authority to limit spending in order to balance the Department's 2004 budget. To meet the budget constraints, the Housing Authority's Board of Commissioners reduced the payment standard from 110% of the 50th percentile of rents in Los Angeles County to 100% of the 40th percentile of rents. At the time, the Board estimated that “approximately 45% of its approximately 45,000 Section 8 tenants would be adversely affected by the April 2004 decrease, and would have to pay an average of $104 more in rent each month if they chose to remain in their current units. Of this number, nearly 5,000 were elderly families, and nearly 4,500 were non-elderly, disabled families.”7

That year, the Housing Authority instructed its staff to attach a copy of a flyer to each Section 8 beneficiaries' “notice of review determination” or “RE–38,” which is a form sent annually to all Section 8 beneficiaries at the time of their annual reexamination that confirms their renewed eligibility for benefits and sets forth their rent contribution and subsidy amount for the currentyear. The flyer, which was printed in both English and Spanish, stated:



Effective April 2, 2004 the Housing Authority lowered the payment standards used to determine your portion of the rent. We will not apply these lower payment standards until your next regular reexamination. If you move, however, these new lower payment standards will apply to your next unit.

That message was followed by (1) a heading stating “PAYMENT STANDARDS AND TENANT–BASED SHELTER PLUS CARE PAYMENT STANDARDS EFFECTIVE APRIL 2, 2004; (2) a table listing the new payment standards; and (3) a statement that “Regardless of its location, the unit's rent can never be higher than the comparable rents determined by the housing authority.”8For simplicity, this will hereinafter be referred to as the “flyer.” The attached RE–38 form showed the tenant's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
54 cases
  • Ramos v. Nielsen
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • 6 Agosto 2018
    ...administrative standards defining eligibility for them has an interest in continued receipt of those benefits." Nozzi v. Hous. Auth. , 806 F.3d 1178, 1190-91 (9th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). A statute does not give a claim of entitlement, however, when availability of the benefit is enti......
  • J.L. v. Cissna, Case No. 18-cv-04914-NC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • 15 Marzo 2019
    ...constraints on governmental decisions that deprive individuals of liberty and property interests." Nozzi v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles , 806 F.3d 1178, 1190 (9th Cir. 2015). Thus, the government violates procedural due process when (1) the plaintiff has a protected property or liber......
  • Latham v. Acton
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Alaska
    • 9 Octubre 2020
    ...§ 1. 114. Brewster v. Bd. of Educ. of Lynwood Unified Sch. Dist., 149 F.3d 971, 982 (9th Cir. 1998). 115. Nozzi v. Hous. Auth. of City of L.A., 806 F.3d 1178, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015), as amended on denial of reh'g and reh'g en banc (Jan. 29, 2016) (quoting Bd. of Regents of State Colls. v. Rot......
  • Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. SFR Invs. Pool 1, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 25 Junio 2018
    ...tangible property and include anything to which a plaintiff has a ‘legitimate claim of entitlement.’ " Nozzi v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles , 806 F.3d 1178, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015), as amended on denial of reh’g and reh’g en banc (Jan. 29, 2016) (quoting Roth , 408 U.S. at 576–77, 92 S.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT