porno porno izle sikis

Mendoza v. Frenchman Hill Apts. and Washington Housing Finance Comm'n, No. CS-03-0494-RHW (E.D. Wa. 2005)

Filed before Rev. Ruling 2004-82, suit challenges owner's proposed eviction without cause and owner's and agency's failure to comply with Sec. 42 as a violation of federal law via Sec. 1983 and due process.

a. Amended Complaint
b. Plaintiffs' Memo in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment
c. WSHFC Memo in Opposition to SJ
d. Private Defendants' Memo in Opposition to SJ
e. Plaintiffs' Reply Memo on SJ
f. WSHFC Statement of Facts
g. WSHFC Declaration of Mark Flynn (with Attachments)
h. Private Defendants' Statement of Facts
i. Plaintiffs' Reply to WSHFC Statement of Facts
j. Plaintiffs' Reply to Priv. Defendants' Statement of Facts
k. Order Denying in Part and Granting in Part Plaintiffs' Motion for SJ (Jan. 20, 2005)
Court rules:

1) that the LIHTC statute means what it says, requiring ELIHCs prohibiting evictions without cause, as urged by the tenants and the Revenue Ruling;
2) that, under its application of Gonzaga, this requirement is not enforceable via Section 1983;
3) that, on the limited facts of this case, where a local housing authority was a general partner of the partnership owner, the tenants have shown a procedural due process violation, satisfied by state eviction procedure, except for the requirement and content of the eviction notice (which must be for cause).

Note that: ruling is under reconsideration as of February 25, 2005; complaint did not include any state law mandamus claim against state agency. In response to court's invitation, plaintiffs filed objections to this ruling. In a ruling dated Feb. 15, 2005, the court nevertheless entered partial summary judgment on the 1983 claim for defendants.

ankara escort istanbul escort bayan
ankara escort istanbul escort bayan