This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Civil Rights
Deprivation of Rights
United States Housing Act

Jacquelyn Hall, Ariana Martinez, Karla Fernandez, Chavon White and Esther Williams, for themselves and all others similarly situated v. Housing Authority of the County of Marin, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive

Published: Jan. 24, 2015 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 3:12-cv-04922-RS Settlement –  Injunctive Relief

Court

USDC Northern


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Frank F. Sommers IV
(Sommers Law PC)

Maura Prendiville

Karen Carrera

S. Andrew Schwartz M.D.


Defendant

Colin H. Jewell
(Cholakian & Associates)

Kevin K. Cholakian
(Cholakian & Associates)


Facts

Jacquelyn Hall, Ariana Martinez, Karla Fernandez, Chavon White, and Esther Williams filed a class action against the Housing Authority of the County of Marin.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs alleged they were tenants of, and had leases with, the Housing Authority. Plaintiffs further alleged that the Housing Authority committed numerous violations of the United States Housing Act. Plaintiffs contended that the Housing Authority wrongfully demanded and collected legal fees as a requirement for settling eviction proceedings. Plaintiffs also contended that the Housing Authority applied tenant monthly payments to charges other than rent before applying the payments to rent and then initiated unlawful detainer proceedings based on its payment application policy. Plaintiff further contended that the Housing Authority wrongfully assessed maintenance charges against tenants that the tenants were not responsible for.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The Housing Authority denied the plaintiffs' claims and asserted various affirmative defenses. The Housing Authority contended it had no policy of collecting legal fees to settle eviction proceedings. The unlawful detainer cases where fees were assessed in the past were court-supervised settlements or judgments in which the tenants agreed to payment plans that allowed them to remain in public housing. Defendant contended that the lawsuit was not a catalyst for changes in policy regarding posting of rent payments and late fees that had already been implemented. Defendant contended no wrongful assessments of maintenance charges were established.

Result

The parties settled the lawsuit and the court entered an order of final approval of the class settlement. Pursuant to the settlement, the Housing Authority, agreed to follow certain changes it made to its procedures prior to entering the settlement that provided most of the relief plaintiffs sought in their claims. Housing Authority agreed to follow these changes for a period of two years, unless it followed certain procedures for making further changes. The settlement also noted that Housing Authority made certain refunds and excused certain debts for 562 tenants prior to the settlement that plaintiffs contended they would have been entitled to pursuant to their action. Housing Authority's insurers also agreed to pay the class counsel $400,000 in attorney fees and costs.

Other Information

FILING DATE: Sept. 20, 2012.


#91084

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390