U.S. District Court United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (Seattle)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:09-cv-00226-MJP

Wilson v. Seattle Housing Authority et al Assigned to: Judge Marsha J. Pechman Cause: 42:1981 Housing Discrimination

Date Filed: 02/20/2009 Date Terminated: 01/10/2012 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 443 Civil Rights: Accommodations Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff
Markeletta Wilson and all others similarly situated

represented by Merf Emerson Ehman COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES (SEA) 101 YESLER WAY STE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98104-2552 206-464-5933 Email: merf.ehman@columbialegal.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicholas Broten Straley COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES (SEA) 101 YESLER WAY STE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98104-2552 206-464-5933 Fax: 425-259-3421 Email: nick.straley@columbialegal.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Holly Marie Simpkins PERKINS COIE (SEA) 1201 3RD AVE STE 4800 SEATTLE, WA 98101-3099 206-359-6474 Email: hsimpkins@perkinscoie.com

Plaintiff Marie Townes
V. Defendant

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca S Engrav PERKINS COIE (SEA) 1201 3RD AVE STE 4800 SEATTLE, WA 98101-3099 206-359-8000 Email: REngrav@perkinscoie.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan M. Spear PERKINS COIE (SEA) 1201 3RD AVE STE 4900 SEATTLE, WA 98101-3099 206-359-8000 Email: rspear@perkinscoie.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Holly Marie Simpkins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Merf Emerson Ehman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas Broten Straley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca S Engrav (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan M. Spear (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Seattle Housing Authority

represented by Donald S Means SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY 120 6TH AVE N PO BOX 19028 SEATTLE, WA 98109 206-615-3572 Fax: FAX 615-3509 Email: dmeans@seattlehousing.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Ernest Fearn , Jr. SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL 120 6TH AVE N SEATTLE, WA 98109 206-615-3573 Fax: FAX 206-615-3509 Email: jfearn@seattlehousing.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristen Dorrity ANDREWS SKINNER 645 ELLIOTT AVENUE W STE 350 SEATTLE, WA 98119-3911 206-223-9248 Fax: 206-623-9050 Email: kristen.dorrity@andrewsskinner.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura Hawes Young LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP (SEATTLE) 1111 THIRD AVE STE 2700 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206-436-2020 Fax: 206-436-2030 Email: laura.young@lewisbrisbois.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Thomas Tierney Executive Director of the Seattle Housing Authority, in his official capacity
Defendant US Department of Housing and Urban Development TERMINATED: 03/29/2011

Scott M Barbara ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE (SEA- FIFTH AVE) 800 5TH AVE STE 2000 SEATTLE, WA 98104-3188 206-389-2033 Email: scott.barbara@atg.wa.gov TERMINATED: 01/12/2011
represented by Donald S Means (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Ernest Fearn , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristen Dorrity (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura Hawes Young (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott M Barbara (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/12/2011
represented by Adam David Kirschner U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (MASS AVE) 20 MASSACHUSETTS AVE NW WASHINGTON, DC 20530 202-353-9265 Email: adam.kirschner@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristin Berger Johnson US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE (SEA) 700 STEWART ST STE 5220

Defendant
Shaun Donovan Secretary for United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, in his official capacity TERMINATED: 03/29/2011

SEATTLE, WA 98101-1271 206-553-7970 Email: Kristin.B.Johnson@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Adam David Kirschner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristin Berger Johnson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 02/20/2009
02/26/2009 02/27/2009 02/27/2009 03/06/2009 03/12/2009
03/23/2009

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF against defendants Seattle Housing Authority, Thomas Tierney (Summons(es) issued)(Receipt # SEA24093), filed by Markeletta Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(MKB) (Entered: 02/23/2009)
2 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Donald S Means on behalf of Defendants Seattle Housing Authority, Thomas Tierney. (Means, Donald) (Entered: 02/26/2009)
3 SERVICE OF SUMMONS and Complaint returned executed upon defendant Seattle Housing Authority on 2/20/2009 (MD) (Entered: 03/02/2009)
4 SERVICE OF SUMMONS and Complaint returned executed upon defendant Thomas Tierney on 2/20/2009 (MD) (Entered: 03/02/2009)
5 AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendant(s) all defendants, filed by Marie Townes, Markeletta Wilson.(Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 03/06/2009)
6 MINUTE ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. The Honorable James L. Robart recuses himself and the Case is reassigned in rotation to Judge Marsha J. Pechman for all further proceedings. Judge James L. Robart no longer assigned to caseby Judge James L. Robart. (MD) (Entered: 03/12/2009)
7 ORDER REGARDING INITIAL DISCLOSURES, JOINT STATUS REPORT AND EARLY SETTLEMENT Joint Status Report due by 5/4/2009, FRCP 26f Conference Deadline is 4/20/2009, Initial Disclosure Deadline is 4/27/2009, by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (LG) (Entered: 03/23/2009)

03/26/2009 05/04/2009 05/05/2009 05/12/2009 05/22/2009 06/15/2009 06/19/2009
06/22/2009
07/23/2009 07/23/2009

8 ANSWER to 5 Amended Complaint by Seattle Housing Authority.(Means, Donald) (Entered: 03/26/2009)
9 JOINT STATUS REPORT signed by all parties estimated Trial Days: uncertain.. (Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 05/04/2009)
Attorney James Ernest Fearn, Jr for Seattle Housing Authority and Thomas Tierney added per 9 Joint Status Report. (KN) (Entered: 05/05/2009)
10 ORDER re 9 Joint Status Report; pursuant to the request of the parties, trial scheduling will be stayed pending the filing of a motion to add a party and cross-motions for summary judgment; signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (SC) (Entered: 05/12/2009)
11 MOTION to Dismiss re to join the US Dept of Housing and Urban development as an indispenisble party by Defendant Seattle Housing Authority. Noting Date 6/19/2009, (Means, Donald) Modified text to correct type of motion on 6/22/2009 (MD). (Entered: 05/22/2009)
12 RESPONSE, by Plaintiffs Markeletta Wilson, Marie Townes, to 11 MOTION to Dismiss re to join the US Department of Housing and Urban Development as an indispenisble party. (Ehman, Merf) Modified text to correctly title the motion on 6/22/2009 (MD). (Entered: 06/15/2009)
13 REPLY, filed by Defendants Seattle Housing Authority, Thomas Tierney, TO RESPONSE to 11 MOTION to Dismiss re to join the US Department of Housing and Urban Development as an Indispenisble party (Fearn, James) Modified text to correctly title motion on 6/22/2009 (MD). (Entered: 06/19/2009)
NOTICE of Docket Text Modification re 11 MOTION for Leave to join, 12 Response to Motion, 13 Reply to Response to Motion, : CORRECTION TO THE DOCKET ENTRY - THE CORRECT TITLE OF MOTION IS "MOTION TO JOIN THE US DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AS AN INDISPENISBLE PARTY" (MD) (Entered: 06/22/2009)
14 NOTICE of Association of Attorney by Scott M Barbara on behalf of Defendants Seattle Housing Authority, Thomas Tierney. (Barbara, Scott) (Entered: 07/23/2009)
15 Stipulated MOTION for Amendment to and Clarification of Order on Motion Schedule (Sub# 10) by Defendant Seattle Housing Authority. Noting Date 7/23/2009, (Barbara, Scott) (Entered: 07/23/2009)

08/03/2009 08/05/2009 08/06/2009 08/06/2009 08/06/2009 08/06/2009 08/06/2009 08/07/2009
08/07/2009 08/07/2009 08/10/2009 08/12/2009

16 STIPULATION AND ORDER granting 15 Stipulated Motion to and clarification of order on motion schedule (Sub# 10), by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(MD) (Entered: 08/04/2009)
17 STIPULATION Agreed Joint Statement of Facts by parties. (Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 08/05/2009)
18 MOTION to Certify Class by Plaintiffs Markeletta Wilson, Marie Townes. Oral Argument Requested. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 8/28/2009, (Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 08/06/2009)
19 DECLARATION of Nicholas Straley filed by Plaintiffs Markeletta Wilson, Marie Townes re 18 MOTION to Certify Class (Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 08/06/2009)
20 DECLARATION of Merf Ehman filed by Plaintiffs Markeletta Wilson, Marie Townes re 18 MOTION to Certify Class (Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 08/06/2009)
21 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs Markeletta Wilson, Marie Townes. Oral Argument Requested. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 8/28/2009, (Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 08/06/2009)
22 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Defendant Seattle Housing Authority. Noting Date 8/28/2009, (Barbara, Scott) (Entered: 08/06/2009)
23 MINUTE ORDER re: 21 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Markeletta Wilson & Marie Townes and 22 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Seattle Housing Authority. The parties are ordered to file only responsive briefs on these cross-motions for summary judgment, due on 8/28/09. Signed by Docket Clerk M Duett at the direction of Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (SC) (Entered: 08/07/2009)
24 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs Markeletta Wilson, Marie Townes re 18 MOTION to Certify Class. (Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 08/07/2009)
25 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs Markeletta Wilson, Marie Townes re 21 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. (Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 08/07/2009)
26 ORDER granting 11 Defendant's Motion to join the US Department of Housing and Urban Development as an indispensable party, by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(MD) (Entered: 08/12/2009)
27 MINUTE ORDER- Plaintiffs are hereby ordered to: Amend their complaint to add the US Dept of Housing and Urban Development as a party defendant and Serve copies of the amended complaint on all parties re: 26 Order on Motion

08/19/2009 08/21/2009
08/27/2009
08/27/2009 09/01/2009 09/01/2009 09/01/2009 09/02/2009 10/06/2009

for Leave to add party, by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (MD) (Entered: 08/12/2009)
28 Stipulated MOTION AND PROPOSED ORDER for Continuance of Pending Motions by Defendant Seattle Housing Authority. Noting Date 8/19/2009, (Barbara, Scott) Modified text on 8/20/2009 (MD). (Entered: 08/19/2009)
29 STIPULATION AND ORDER for continuance of pending motions 28 Stipulated Motion to continue of pending motions. Motions Continued to a date to be determined after HUD appears and answers re: 18 Motion to Certify Class; 21 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; 22 Motion for Summary Judgment; by Judge James L. Robart for Marsha J. Pechman.(MD) (Entered: 08/21/2009)
30 Second AMENDED COMPLAINT for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief and Monetary Damages against defendant(s) US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Shaun Donovan, Seattle Housing Authority, Thomas Tierney, filed by Markeletta Wilson, Marie Townes.(Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 08/27/2009)
31 PRAECIPE TO ISSUE SUMMONS. Clerk issued 2 summons. (KL) (Entered: 08/28/2009)
32 AFFIDAVIT of Mailing of Summons and Complaint to US Department of Housing and Urban Development on 8/28/2009, filed by Plaintiffs Markeletta Wilson, Marie Townes. (Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 09/01/2009)
33 AFFIDAVIT of Mailing of Summons and Complaint to Shaun Donovan, Secretary of the US Department of Housing and Urban Development on 8/28/2009, filed by Plaintiffs Markeletta Wilson, Marie Townes. (Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 09/01/2009)
34 AFFIDAVIT of Mailing of Summons and Complaint to Eric Holder, US Attorney General on 8/28/2009, filed by Plaintiffs Markeletta Wilson, Marie Townes. (Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 09/01/2009)
35 SERVICE OF SUMMONS and Second Amended Complaint returned executed upon defendant US Department of Housing and Urban Development on 8/28/2009 (MD) (Entered: 09/03/2009)
36 ORDER REGARDING INITIAL DISCLOSURES, JOINT STATUS REPORT AND EARLY SETTLEMENT Joint Status Report due by 11/17/2009, FRCP 26f Conference Deadline is 11/3/2009, Initial Disclosure Deadline is 11/10/2009, by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (RM) (Entered: 10/06/2009)

10/15/2009 10/16/2009 10/16/2009
11/19/2009 11/20/2009 11/24/2009
12/03/2009 12/04/2009 12/08/2009
12/08/2009

37 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Adam David Kirschner on behalf of Defendants US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Shaun Donovan. (Kirschner, Adam) (Entered: 10/15/2009)
38 Stipulated MOTION to Extend Deadlines by Defendants US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Shaun Donovan. Noting Date 10/16/2009, (Kirschner, Adam) (Entered: 10/16/2009)
39 MINUTE ORDER, US Department of Housing and Urban Development answer due 11/24/2009; Shaun Donovan answer due 11/24/2009. FRCP 26f Conference Deadline is 12/1/2009, Initial Disclosure Deadline is 12/8/2009, Joint Status Report due by 12/15/2009, by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (IM) (Entered: 10/16/2009)
40 Agreed MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Defendants US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Shaun Donovan. Noting Date 11/19/2009, (Kirschner, Adam) (Entered: 11/19/2009)
41 ORDER denying 40 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(SC) (Entered: 11/20/2009)
42 MOTION to Dismiss by Defendants US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Shaun Donovan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1- Pour Declaration, # 2 Exhibit 2- Stewart Declaration, # 3 Exhibit 3- Rawson Declaration, # 4 Proposed Order) Noting Date 12/18/2009, (Kirschner, Adam) (Entered: 11/24/2009)
43 MOTION to Stay HUD Defendants' Motion to Dismiss by Plaintiff Marie Townes, Defendants Seattle Housing Authority, Thomas Tierney. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 12/11/2009, (Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 12/03/2009)
44 Agreed MOTION to Stay by Plaintiff Markeletta Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 12/4/2009, (Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 12/04/2009)
45 AMENDMENT to 37 Notice of Appearance by Defendants US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Shaun Donovan,Seattle Housing Authority, Thomas Tierney. (Johnson, Kristin) Modified on 12/8/2009, removed Seattle Housing Authority, Thomas Tierney as filers per counsel (KN). (Entered: 12/08/2009)
NOTICE of Docket Text Modification re 45 Amended Document, : removed Seattle Housing Authority, Thomas Tierney as filers from docket text. (KN) (Entered: 12/08/2009)

12/11/2009 12/15/2009 01/14/2010
01/25/2010 02/11/2010 02/16/2010 02/16/2010 02/16/2010 02/18/2010 02/19/2010

46 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 44 Motion to Stay 42 MOTION to Dismiss: the Motion to Dismiss is re-noted to 2/19/2010; signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(SC) (Entered: 12/11/2009)
47 JOINT STATUS REPORT signed by all parties estimated Trial Days: uncertain. Filed by Plaintiffs Markeletta Wilson, Marie Townes.(Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 12/15/2009)
48 ORDER SETTING TRIAL DATE AND RELATED DATES; Jury Trial is set for 3/28/2011 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 14206 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. Joinder of Parties due by 2/11/2010, Amended Pleadings due by 2/22/2010, Expert Witness Disclosure/Reports under FRCP 26(a)(2) due by 8/30/2010, Motions due by 9/29/2010, Discovery completed by 10/29/2010, Dispositive motions due by 11/29/2010, Settlement conference to be held by 1/27/2011, 39.1 Settlement Report due by 2/28/2011, Motions in Limine due by 2/28/2011, Pretrial Order due by 3/16/2011, Pretrial Conference set for 3/18/2011 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 14206 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. Trial briefs to be submitted by 3/23/2011, Proposed voir dire/jury instructions due by 3/23/2011, by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (RM) (Entered: 01/14/2010)
49 MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint by Plaintiffs Markeletta Wilson, Marie Townes. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. 1 to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend Second Amended Complaint, # 2 Proposed Order Proposed Order on Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend Second Amended Complaint) Noting Date 2/12/2010, (Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 01/25/2010)
50 NOTICE of Supplemental Declarations re 42 MOTION to Dismiss ; filed by Defendants US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Shaun Donovan. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Declaration of Ivan Pour, # 2 Exhibit A to Supplement Declaration of Ivan Pour, # 3 Supplement Declaration of Harlan Stewart)(Kirschner, Adam) (Entered: 02/11/2010)
51 RESPONSE, by Plaintiffs Markeletta Wilson, Marie Townes, to 42 MOTION to Dismiss. (Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 02/16/2010)
52 RESPONSE, by Defendant Seattle Housing Authority, to 42 MOTION to Dismiss. (Barbara, Scott) (Entered: 02/16/2010)
53 DECLARATION of Andrew J. Lofton filed by Defendant Seattle Housing Authority re 42 MOTION to Dismiss (Barbara, Scott) (Entered: 02/16/2010)
54 ORDER granting 49 Plaintiffs' Motion for leave to amend second amended complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief and monetary damages, by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(MD) (Entered: 02/18/2010)
55 REPLY, filed by Defendants US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Shaun Donovan, TO RESPONSE to 42 MOTION to Dismiss

03/25/2010
03/26/2010 03/26/2010 03/26/2010 03/26/2010 03/26/2010 03/26/2010 03/26/2010 03/26/2010
03/26/2010 04/12/2010

(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1- Pls Discovery Requests to HUD, # 2 Exhibit 2Pls Discov Requests to SHA, # 3 Exhibit 3- Refiled Stewart Suppl Decl, # 4 Exhibit 4- Refiled Pour Suppl Decl)(Kirschner, Adam) (Entered: 02/19/2010)
56 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Plaintiff Markeletta Wilson. Oral Argument Requested. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit) Noting Date 4/16/2010, (Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 03/25/2010)
57 DECLARATION of Markeletta Wilson filed by Plaintiff Markeletta Wilson re 56 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 03/26/2010)
58 DECLARATION of Karen Wyome filed by Plaintiff Markeletta Wilson re 56 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 03/26/2010)
59 PROPOSED ORDER (Unsigned) re 56 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 03/26/2010)
60 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction errata by Plaintiff Markeletta Wilson. Oral Argument Requested. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit) Noting Date 4/16/2010, (Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 03/26/2010)
61 DECLARATION of Markeletta Wilson Errata filed by Plaintiff Markeletta Wilson re 60 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction errata (Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 03/26/2010)
62 DECLARATION of Karen Wyome Errata filed by Plaintiff Markeletta Wilson re 60 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction errata (Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 03/26/2010)
63 PROPOSED ORDER (Unsigned) re 60 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction errata (Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 03/26/2010)
64 ERRATA re 60 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction errata, 61 Declaration, 62 Declaration, 63 Proposed Order (Unsigned) by Plaintiff Markeletta Wilson. (Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 03/26/2010)
65 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Plaintiff Markeletta Wilson re 60 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction errata, 61 Declaration, 62 Declaration, 63 Proposed Order (Unsigned) Amended. (Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 03/26/2010)
66 RESPONSE, by Defendants US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Shaun Donovan, to 60 MOTION for Preliminary

04/12/2010 04/12/2010
04/13/2010 04/16/2010 04/16/2010 04/22/2010 04/23/2010 04/28/2010 05/05/2010
05/06/2010

Injunction errata, 56 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. (Kirschner, Adam) (Entered: 04/12/2010)
67 RESPONSE, by Defendant Seattle Housing Authority, to 60 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction errata, 56 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. (Barbara, Scott) (Entered: 04/12/2010)
68 DECLARATION of Deanna Montgomery-Owens filed by Defendant Seattle Housing Authority re 60 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction errata, 56 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A (Pages 1-41), # 2 Exhibit A (Pages 42-81), # 3 Exhibit A (Pages 82-106))(Barbara, Scott) (Entered: 04/12/2010)
69 PRAECIPE to attach document (Signature Page) of Deanna MontgomeryOwens re 68 Declaration, by Defendant Seattle Housing Authority. (Barbara, Scott) (Entered: 04/13/2010)
70 PRAECIPE to attach document by Plaintiff Markeletta Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Substitute Pages to Exhibit 1)(Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 04/16/2010)
71 REPLY, filed by Plaintiff Markeletta Wilson, TO RESPONSE to 56 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 04/16/2010)
72 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 42 HUD Motion to Dismiss; signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(SC) (Entered: 04/22/2010)
73 Supplemental DECLARATION of Markeletta Wilson filed by Plaintiff Markeletta Wilson re 60 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction errata (Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 04/23/2010)
74 NOTICE of Hearing 60 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction errata : ORAL ARGUMENT/Motion Hearing set for 5/10/2010 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 14206 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. Each side will have 20 minutes for argument, including rebuttal. (RM) (Entered: 04/28/2010)
75 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Marsha J. Pechman- Law Clerk: Steven Crozier; Pla Counsel: Merf Ehman, Nicholas Straley,; Def Counsel: Adam Kirschner (HUD), Scott Barbara (SHA); Time of Hearing: 4:00 pm; Telephone Conference held on 5/5/2010 re: Def HUD's motion for leave to file a memorandum regarding HUD's interpretation of certain HUD regulations. Judge Pechman withheld ruling on the motion until the conclusion of oral argument on the underlying Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Plaintiff Wilson. (SC) (Entered: 05/05/2010)
76 ANSWER to Complaint (Third Amended) by US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Shaun Donovan.(Kirschner, Adam) (Entered: 05/06/2010)

05/10/2010 05/10/2010 05/12/2010 05/13/2010 05/20/2010
08/12/2010

77 MEMORANDUM filed by Defendants US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Shaun Donovan re 60 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction errata, 67 Response to Motion, 56 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Kirschner, Adam) (Entered: 05/10/2010)
78 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Marsha J. Pechman- Dep Clerk: Rhonda Miller; Pla Counsel: Nicholas Straley, Merf Ehman; Def Counsel: Scott Barbara, David Reizes, James Fearn, Adam Kirschner; CR: Kari McGrath; Hearing held on 5/10/2010 regarding 60 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction errata filed by Markeletta Wilson. Oral argument presented. Court will allow Defendant HUD to file their brief. Defendant SHA has until close of business Wednesday to respond. Court will have opinion out by close of business next Monday. (RM) (Entered: 05/10/2010)
79 MEMORANDUM filed by Defendant Seattle Housing Authority re 60 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction errata, 67 Response to Motion, 56 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction in Response to Federal Defendants' Memorandum 77 regarding Regulatory Interpretation (Barbara, Scott) (Entered: 05/12/2010)
80 ORDER denying 60 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(SC) (Entered: 05/13/2010)
81 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of held on 5/10/2010 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman.
Parties have ten (10) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Information regarding the policy can be found on the court's website at www.wawd.uscourts.gov.
To purchase a copy of the transcript contact court reporter Kari McGrath by telephone at 206-370-8509.
. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/18/2010, (SA) (Entered: 05/20/2010)
82 MOTION for Discovery CR37 Submission by Plaintiffs Marie Townes, Markeletta Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Counsel in Support of

09/02/2010 09/02/2010 09/22/2010 09/24/2010 11/09/2010
11/10/2010 11/22/2010 11/22/2010 11/26/2010 12/06/2010

CR37 Submission, # 2 Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting CR37 Submission) Noting Date 8/12/2010, (Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 08/12/2010)
83 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Plaintiffs Marie Townes, Markeletta Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 9/17/2010, (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 09/02/2010)
84 DECLARATION of Plaintiffs' Counsel filed by Plaintiffs Marie Townes, Markeletta Wilson re 83 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 09/02/2010)
85 ORDER granting 82 Motion for Discovery and awarding attorney's fees to moving party; signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(SC) (Entered: 09/22/2010)
86 ORDER granting 83 Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Discovery completed by 1/14/2011, Dispositive motions due by 1/27/2011, Motions regarding discovery due by 12/16/2010, by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(MD) (Entered: 09/27/2010)
87 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Defendants Shaun Donovan, US Department of Housing and Urban Development. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1Pour Declaration, # 2 Exhibit 2- Fed Defs Discov Requests on Pls, # 3 Exhibit 3- Fed Defs Discov Requests on SHA, # 4 Exhibit 4- Pls Discov Requests on HUD, # 5 Exhibit 5- Pls First Set of Discov Requets on SHA, # 6 Exhibit 6Fed Defs Discov Responses to Pls Requests, # 7 Exhibit 7- SHA Discov Resp to Fed Defs Requests, # 8 Exhibit 8- Stewart Supplemental Declaration, # 9 Exhibit 9- Pls Discov Resp to Fed Defs Requests, # 10 Proposed Order) Noting Date 12/10/2010, (Kirschner, Adam) (Entered: 11/09/2010)
88 MOTION to Amend Third Amended Complaint by Plaintiffs Marie Townes, Markeletta Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 11/26/2010, (Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 11/10/2010)
89 RESPONSE, by Defendants Shaun Donovan, US Department of Housing and Urban Development, to 88 MOTION to Amend Third Amended Complaint. (Kirschner, Adam) (Entered: 11/22/2010)
90 RESPONSE, by Defendants Seattle Housing Authority, Thomas Tierney, to 88 MOTION to Amend Third Amended Complaint. (Barbara, Scott) (Entered: 11/22/2010)
91 REPLY, filed by Plaintiff Markeletta Wilson, TO RESPONSE to 88 MOTION to Amend Third Amended Complaint (Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 11/26/2010)
92 RESPONSE, by Plaintiff Marie Townes, to 87 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Oral Argument Requested. (Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 12/06/2010)

12/06/2010 12/06/2010 12/06/2010 12/06/2010 12/06/2010 12/07/2010 12/07/2010 12/07/2010 12/07/2010 12/08/2010
12/10/2010

93 RESPONSE, by Defendants Seattle Housing Authority, Thomas Tierney, to 87 MOTION for Summary Judgment. (Barbara, Scott) (Entered: 12/06/2010)
94 DECLARATION of Nicholas B. Straley filed by Plaintiff Marie Townes re 87 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 12/06/2010)
95 DECLARATION of Marie Townes filed by Plaintiff Marie Townes re 87 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 12/06/2010)
96 DECLARATION of Markeletta Wilson filed by Plaintiff Marie Townes re 87 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 12/06/2010)
97 PROPOSED ORDER (Unsigned) re 87 MOTION for Summary Judgment. (Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 12/07/2010)
98 DECLARATION of Counsel filed by Plaintiffs Marie Townes, Markeletta Wilson re 87 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 12/07/2010)
99 ERRATA RE: Plaintiffs' Response to Federal Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment by Plaintiff Marie Townes. (Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 12/07/2010)
100 RESPONSE, by Plaintiff Marie Townes, to 87 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Oral Argument Requested. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-3, # 2 Exhibit 4-6, # 3 Exhibit 7-11)(Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 12/07/2010)
101 MOTION for Extension of Time To Complete Discovery, File Dispositive Motions and for Continuance of Trial by Plaintiff Marie Townes. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 12/7/2010, (Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 12/07/2010)
102 ORDER granting 101 Motion for Extension of Time to amend case schedule. Jury Trial is CONTINUED TO 9/6/2011 at 09:00 AM before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. Discovery Motions due by 1/3/2011, Discovery completed by 1/24/2011, Dispositive motions due by 2/14/2011, Mediation per 39.1 due by 4/29/2011, Motions in Limine due by 5/9/2011, Pretrial Order due by 5/25/2011, Pretrial Conference set for 5/27/2011 at 09:00 AM before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. Settlement conference per 39.1 to be held by 4/7/2011, Trial briefs to be submitted by 6/1/2011, Proposed voir dire/jury instructions due by 6/1/2011, by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(MD) (Entered: 12/08/2010)
103 REPLY, filed by Defendants Shaun Donovan, US Department of Housing and Urban Development, TO RESPONSE to 87 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Kirschner, Adam) (Entered: 12/10/2010)

01/03/2011 01/03/2011 01/03/2011 01/03/2011 01/04/2011 01/04/2011 01/04/2011 01/05/2011 01/12/2011 01/12/2011 01/13/2011 01/13/2011 01/13/2011

104 MOTION for Sanctions by Plaintiff Markeletta Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) Noting Date 1/21/2011, (Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 01/03/2011)
105 DECLARATION of Nicholas B. Straley filed by Plaintiff Markeletta Wilson re 104 MOTION for Sanctions (Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 01/03/2011)
106 DECLARATION of Merf Ehman filed by Plaintiff Markeletta Wilson re 104 MOTION for Sanctions (Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 01/03/2011)
107 PROPOSED ORDER (Unsigned) re 104 MOTION for Sanctions (Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 01/03/2011)
108 Supplemental DECLARATION of Merf Ehman filed by Plaintiff Markeletta Wilson re 104 MOTION for Sanctions (Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 01/04/2011)
109 Supplemental DECLARATION of Nicholas Straley filed by Plaintiff Markeletta Wilson re 104 MOTION for Sanctions (Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 01/04/2011)
110 ORDER granting 88 Motion to Amend. Counsel is directed to e-file their Amended Complaint; signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(SC) (Entered: 01/04/2011)
111 Fourth AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendant(s) All Defendants, filed by Markeletta Wilson, Marie Townes.(Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 01/05/2011)
112 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Kristen Dorrity on behalf of Defendants Seattle Housing Authority, Thomas Tierney. (Dorrity, Kristen) (Entered: 01/12/2011)
113 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL: Attorney Scott M Barbara for Defendants Seattle Housing Authority, Thomas Tierney. (Dorrity, Kristen) (Entered: 01/12/2011)
Attorney Laura Hawes Young for Seattle Housing Authority,Laura Hawes Young for Thomas Tierney added per 112 Notice of Appearance. (KN) (Entered: 01/13/2011)
114 MOTION to Continue Trial Date by Defendants Seattle Housing Authority, Thomas Tierney. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 1/28/2011, (Dorrity, Kristen) (Entered: 01/13/2011)
115 DECLARATION of Kristen Dorrity filed by Defendants Seattle Housing Authority, Thomas Tierney re 114 MOTION to Continue Trial Date (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4)(Dorrity, Kristen) (Entered: 01/13/2011)

01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/21/2011 01/21/2011 01/24/2011 01/24/2011 01/24/2011 01/28/2011 01/28/2011 02/02/2011
02/03/2011

116 RESPONSE, by Defendant Seattle Housing Authority, to 104 MOTION for Sanctions. (Dorrity, Kristen) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
117 DECLARATION of Kristen Dorrity filed by Defendant Seattle Housing Authority re 104 MOTION for Sanctions (Dorrity, Kristen) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
118 DECLARATION of James Fearn filed by Defendant Seattle Housing Authority re 104 MOTION for Sanctions (Dorrity, Kristen) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
119 DECLARATION of Barbara Strayer filed by Defendant Seattle Housing Authority re 104 MOTION for Sanctions (Dorrity, Kristen) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
120 REPLY, filed by Plaintiffs Marie Townes, Markeletta Wilson, TO RESPONSE to 104 MOTION for Sanctions (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Proposed Order)(Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 01/21/2011)
121 Second DECLARATION of Nicholas B. Straley filed by Plaintiffs Marie Townes, Markeletta Wilson re 104 MOTION for Sanctions (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 01/21/2011)
122 ANSWER to 111 Amended Complaint by Shaun Donovan, US Department of Housing and Urban Development.(Kirschner, Adam) (Entered: 01/24/2011)
123 RESPONSE, by Defendants Shaun Donovan, US Department of Housing and Urban Development, to 114 MOTION to Continue Trial Date. (Kirschner, Adam) (Entered: 01/24/2011)
124 RESPONSE, by Plaintiffs Marie Townes, Markeletta Wilson, to 114 MOTION to Continue Trial Date. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Denying SHA Defendants' Motion for Continuance)(Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 01/24/2011)
125 REPLY, filed by Defendant Seattle Housing Authority, TO RESPONSE to 114 MOTION to Continue Trial Date (Dorrity, Kristen) (Entered: 01/28/2011)
126 Second DECLARATION of Kristen Dorrity (Second) filed by Defendant Seattle Housing Authority re 114 MOTION to Continue Trial Date (Dorrity, Kristen) (Entered: 01/28/2011)
127 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for leave to file multiple summary judgment motions by Plaintiffs Marie Townes, Markeletta Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 2/2/2011, (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 02/02/2011)
128 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 104 Motion for Sanctions; signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(SC) (Entered: 02/03/2011)

02/04/2011 02/04/2011 02/07/2011 02/09/2011 02/10/2011
02/11/2011 02/15/2011 02/24/2011

129 MINUTE ORDER re 127 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages; calling for the parties to either reach a stipulation regarding the request or to brief their opposition. The motion is re-noted to 2/11/2011; signed by Docket Clerk M Duett at the direction of Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (SC) (Entered: 02/04/2011)
130 Joint MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages and motion for continuance of dispositive motions deadline by Defendants Shaun Donovan, Seattle Housing Authority, Thomas Tierney, US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Plaintiffs Marie Townes, Markeletta Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 2/4/2011, (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 02/04/2011)
131 ORDER granting 127 Stipulated Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages; granting 130 Stipulated Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Dispositive motions due by 2/28/2011, by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(MD) (Entered: 02/07/2011)
NOTICE of Docket Text Modification regarding 102 Order on Motion for Extension of Time: Jury Trial is set for 6/6/2011 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 14206 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (RM) (Entered: 02/09/2011)
132 ORDER granting 114 Defendants Motion to Continue Trial Date. Jury Trial is CONTINUED TO 7/11/2011 at 09:00 AM before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. Discovery Motions due by 2/22/2011, Discovery completed by 3/15/2011, Dispositive motions due by 4/15/2011, Settlement Conference per CR39.1(c)(2) held no later 5/12/2011; Mediation per CR39.1(c)(3) held no later than 6/6/2011, Motions in Limine due by 6/6/2011, Pretrial Order due by 6/26/2011, Pretrial Conference set for 7/1/2011 at 10:00 AM before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. Trial briefs to be submitted by 7/6/2011, Proposed voir dire/jury instructions due by 7/6/2011, by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(MD) (Entered: 02/10/2011)
133 NOTICE of Recent Decision re 87 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 103 Reply to Response to Motion ; filed by Defendants Shaun Donovan, US Department of Housing and Urban Development. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Shepherd v. Weldon Decision)(Kirschner, Adam) (Entered: 02/11/2011)
Per the joint request of the parties, the Court extends the deadline to respond to the Court's order in docket number 132. The parties must respond to the order within 10 days of this docket entry. (IM) (Entered: 02/15/2011)
134 JOINT STATUS REPORT signed by all parties. (Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 02/24/2011)

03/02/2011 03/04/2011 03/07/2011
03/14/2011 03/14/2011 03/15/2011 03/15/2011 03/17/2011
03/29/2011

135 NOTICE of Change of Address of Attorney Kristen Dorrity. Filed by Defendants Seattle Housing Authority, Thomas Tierney. (Dorrity, Kristen) (Address updated on 3/3/11) (KN). (Entered: 03/02/2011)
136 NOTICE of Hearing 87 MOTION for Summary Judgment : ORAL ARGUMENT/Motion Hearing set for 3/17/2011 at 02:30 PM in Courtroom 14206 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. Plaintiff, Defendant Seattle Housing, and Defendant HUD will each have 20 minutes for argument, including rebuttal. (RM) (Entered: 03/04/2011)
137 ORDER RESETTING TRIAL AND RELATED DATES: Bench Trial is set for 10/24/2011 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 14206 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. Settlement Conference to be held by 9/6/2011; 39.1 Settlement Report due by 9/19/2011, Motions in Limine due by 9/19/2011, Deadline to exchange witness lists by 10/10/2011; Pretrial Order due by 10/12/2011, Pretrial Conference set for 10/14/2011 at 03:30 PM before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. Trial briefs to be submitted by 10/19/2011, Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to be submitted by 10/19/2011, by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (RM) (Entered: 03/07/2011)
138 NOTICE of additional authorities in opposition re 87 MOTION for Summary Judgment ; filed by Plaintiffs Marie Townes, Markeletta Wilson. (Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 03/14/2011)
139 SURREPLY filed by Defendants Seattle Housing Authority, Thomas Tierney re 87 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Dorrity, Kristen) (Entered: 03/14/2011)
140 ERRATA re 139 Surreply re SHA Response to HUD NOTICE of Recent Decision by Defendant Seattle Housing Authority. (Dorrity, Kristen) (Entered: 03/15/2011)
141 RESPONSE by Defendant Seattle Housing Authority re 133 NoticeOther, HUD's Notice of Recent Decision. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Dorrity, Kristen) (Entered: 03/15/2011)
142 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Marsha J. Pechman- Dep Clerk: Rhonda MIller; Pla Counsel: Merf Ehman, Nicholas Straley; Def Counsel: Adam Kirschner, David Reizes, Kristen Dorrity, Laura Young, James Fearn; CR: Nancy Bauer; Motion Hearing held on 3/17/2011 87 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Shaun Donovan, US Department of Housing and Urban Development. The FHA claims against HUD are dismissed. Oral argument presented. Court will issue decision by 3/24/2011. (RM) (Entered: 03/18/2011)
143 ORDER granting 87 Federal Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, as well as Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the FHA claims against HUD. The claims

03/31/2011
03/31/2011 03/31/2011 04/06/2011
04/06/2011 04/06/2011 04/06/2011 04/06/2011 04/08/2011 04/12/2011 04/15/2011

against the Federal Defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice; signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(SC) (Entered: 03/29/2011)
144 MOTION for Protective Order by Plaintiffs Marie Townes, Markeletta Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 and 2, # 2 Exhibit 3 and 4, # 3 Exhibit 5 and 6, # 4 Exhibit 7, # 5 Exhibit 8 and 9, # 6 Proposed Order) Noting Date 4/8/2011, (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 03/31/2011)
145 DECLARATION of Nicholas B. Straley filed by Plaintiffs Marie Townes, Markeletta Wilson re 144 MOTION for Protective Order (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 03/31/2011)
146 MOTION to Dismiss Certain Claims by Plaintiffs Marie Townes, Markeletta Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 4/15/2011, (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 03/31/2011)
147 RESPONSE, by Defendant Seattle Housing Authority, to 144 MOTION for Protective Order. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit)(Dorrity, Kristen) (Entered: 04/06/2011)
148 DECLARATION of Kristen Dorrity filed by Defendant Seattle Housing Authority re 144 MOTION for Protective Order (Dorrity, Kristen) (Entered: 04/06/2011)
149 Joint MOTION for Discovery CR 37 by Defendant Seattle Housing Authority. Noting Date 4/6/2011, (Dorrity, Kristen) (Entered: 04/06/2011)
150 DECLARATION of Kristen Dorrity filed by Defendant Seattle Housing Authority re 149 Joint MOTION for Discovery CR 37 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Dorrity, Kristen) (Entered: 04/06/2011)
151 DECLARATION of Nicolas Straley filed by Plaintiff Marie Townes re 149 Joint MOTION for Discovery CR 37 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Dorrity, Kristen) (Entered: 04/06/2011)
152 REPLY, filed by Plaintiffs Marie Townes, Markeletta Wilson, TO RESPONSE to 144 MOTION for Protective Order (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 04/08/2011)
153 RESPONSE, by Defendant Seattle Housing Authority, to 146 MOTION to Dismiss Certain Claims. (Dorrity, Kristen) (Entered: 04/12/2011)
154 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Defendant Seattle Housing Authority. Oral Argument Requested. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Proposed Order) Noting Date 5/20/2011, (Dorrity, Kristen) (Entered: 04/15/2011)

04/15/2011 04/15/2011 04/15/2011 04/15/2011 04/15/2011 04/15/2011 04/15/2011
04/15/2011
04/15/2011 04/15/2011

155 DECLARATION of Barbara Strayer filed by Defendant Seattle Housing Authority re 154 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Dorrity, Kristen) (Entered: 04/15/2011)
156 DECLARATION of James Fearn filed by Defendant Seattle Housing Authority re 154 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Dorrity, Kristen) (Entered: 04/15/2011)
157 DECLARATION of Deanna Montgomery-Owens filed by Defendant Seattle Housing Authority re 154 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Dorrity, Kristen) (Entered: 04/15/2011)
158 DECLARATION of Kristen Dorrity filed by Defendant Seattle Housing Authority re 154 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Dorrity, Kristen) (Entered: 04/15/2011)
159 MOTION to Certify Class by Plaintiffs Marie Townes, Markeletta Wilson. Oral Argument Requested. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 5/20/2011, (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 04/15/2011)
160 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs Marie Townes, Markeletta Wilson. Oral Argument Requested. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 5/20/2011, (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 04/15/2011)
161 SEALED DOCUMENT Exhibits by Plaintiffs Marie Townes, Markeletta Wilson re 160 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 159 MOTION to Certify Class, 144 MOTION for Protective Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Exhibit, # 18 Exhibit, # 19 Exhibit)(Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 04/15/2011)
162 DECLARATION of Nicholas B. Straley filed by Plaintiffs Marie Townes, Markeletta Wilson re 160 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 159 MOTION to Certify Class (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit)(Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 04/15/2011)
163 DECLARATION of Merf Ehman filed by Plaintiffs Marie Townes, Markeletta Wilson re 159 MOTION to Certify Class (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 04/15/2011)
164 DECLARATION of Records Custodian filed by Plaintiffs Marie Townes, Markeletta Wilson re 160 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 159 MOTION to Certify Class (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 04/15/2011)

04/15/2011 04/15/2011 04/16/2011 04/16/2011 04/16/2011 04/16/2011
04/19/2011 04/21/2011 05/05/2011 05/10/2011 05/11/2011

165 DECLARATION of Mary Jo Fike filed by Plaintiffs Marie Townes, Markeletta Wilson re 160 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 159 MOTION to Certify Class (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 04/15/2011)
166 DECLARATION of Records Custodian filed by Plaintiffs Marie Townes, Markeletta Wilson re 160 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 159 MOTION to Certify Class (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 04/16/2011)
167 DECLARATION of Markeletta Wilson filed by Plaintiffs Marie Townes, Markeletta Wilson re 160 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 159 MOTION to Certify Class (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 04/16/2011)
168 DECLARATION of Marie Townes filed by Plaintiffs Marie Townes, Markeletta Wilson re 160 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 159 MOTION to Certify Class (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 04/16/2011)
169 DECLARATION of Karen Wyome filed by Plaintiffs Marie Townes, Markeletta Wilson re 160 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 159 MOTION to Certify Class (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 04/16/2011)
170 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by Plaintiffs Marie Townes, Markeletta Wilson re 160 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 166 Declaration, 168 Declaration, 165 Declaration, 167 Declaration, 162 Declaration, 164 Declaration, 163 Declaration, 169 Declaration, 159 MOT ION to Certify Class, 161 Sealed Document,,. (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 04/16/2011)
171 ORDER granting 146 Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss certain claim by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(MD) (Entered: 04/19/2011)
172 ORDER granting 144 Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order; granting in part and denying in part 149 Joint Motion for Discovery by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (Attachments: # 1 Protective Order signed by Judge Pechman)(MD) (Entered: 04/21/2011)
173 MOTION supplement record regarding summary judgment re 160 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs Marie Townes, Markeletta Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 5/20/2011, (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 05/05/2011)
174 Stipulated MOTION for Overlength Opposition Briefs by Defendant Seattle Housing Authority. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 5/10/2011, (Dorrity, Kristen) (Entered: 05/10/2011)
175 ORDER denying 174 Stipulated Motion for overlength opposition briefs; signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(SC) (Entered: 05/11/2011)

05/13/2011 05/13/2011 05/13/2011 05/16/2011 05/16/2011
05/16/2011 05/16/2011 05/16/2011 05/16/2011 05/16/2011
05/16/2011

176 MOTION for Leave to File 5th Amended Complaint by Plaintiffs Marie Townes, Markeletta Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Proposed Order) Noting Date 6/3/2011, (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 05/13/2011)
177 DECLARATION of Nicholas B. Straley filed by Plaintiffs Marie Townes, Markeletta Wilson re 176 MOTION for Leave to File 5th Amended Complaint (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 05/13/2011)
178 DECLARATION of Markeletta Wilson filed by Plaintiffs Marie Townes, Markeletta Wilson re 176 MOTION for Leave to File 5th Amended Complaint (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 05/13/2011)
179 RESPONSE, by Defendant Seattle Housing Authority, to 160 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Oral Argument Requested. (Dorrity, Kristen) (Entered: 05/16/2011)
180 DECLARATION of Kristen Dorrity filed by Defendant Seattle Housing Authority re 160 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit)(Dorrity, Kristen) (Entered: 05/16/2011)
181 RESPONSE, by Defendants Seattle Housing Authority, Thomas Tierney, to 159 MOTION to Certify Class. (Young, Laura) (Entered: 05/16/2011)
182 DECLARATION of Barbara Strayer filed by Defendant Seattle Housing Authority re 160 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Dorrity, Kristen) (Entered: 05/16/2011)
183 DECLARATION of James Fearn filed by Defendant Seattle Housing Authority re 160 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Dorrity, Kristen) (Entered: 05/16/2011)
184 RESPONSE, by Defendant Seattle Housing Authority, to 173 MOTION supplement record regarding summary judgment re 160 MOTION for Summary Judgment. (Dorrity, Kristen) (Entered: 05/16/2011)
185 DECLARATION of Laura Hawes Young filed by Defendants Seattle Housing Authority, Thomas Tierney re 159 MOTION to Certify Class (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits to Declaration of Laura Hawes Young)(Young, Laura) (Entered: 05/16/2011)
186 SEALED DOCUMENT Declaration of Laura Hawes Young in Support of Opposition to Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion by Defendants Seattle Housing Authority, Thomas Tierney re 172 Order on Motion for Protective Order, Order on Motion for Discovery (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit,

05/16/2011 05/16/2011 05/17/2011 05/17/2011 05/17/2011 05/18/2011
05/18/2011 05/20/2011 05/20/2011 05/20/2011

# 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit)(Young, Laura) (Entered: 05/16/2011)
187 RESPONSE, by Plaintiffs Marie Townes, Markeletta Wilson, to 154 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Oral Argument Requested. (Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 05/16/2011)
189 DECLARATION of Merf Ehman filed by Plaintiffs Marie Townes, Markeletta Wilson re 160 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit)(Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 05/17/2011)
188 Supplemental DECLARATION of Karen Wyome filed by Plaintiffs Marie Townes, Markeletta Wilson re 160 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 05/17/2011)
190 DECLARATION of Merf Ehman filed by Defendant Thomas Tierney, Plaintiff Markeletta Wilson re 154 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit)(Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 05/17/2011)
191 Supplemental DECLARATION of Karen Wyome filed by Plaintiffs Marie Townes, Markeletta Wilson re 154 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Ehman, Merf) (Entered: 05/17/2011)
192 SEALED DOCUMENT Declaration of Laura Hawes Young in Support of Opposition to Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion by Defendants Seattle Housing Authority, Thomas Tierney re 172 Order on Motion for Protective Order, Order on Motion for Discovery, 159 MOTION to Certify Class (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit)(Young, Laura) (Entered: 05/18/2011)
193 ERRATA re 186 Sealed Document,, by Defendants Seattle Housing Authority, Thomas Tierney. (Young, Laura) (Entered: 05/18/2011)
194 REPLY, filed by Defendants Seattle Housing Authority, Thomas Tierney, TO RESPONSE to 154 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Young, Laura) (Entered: 05/20/2011)
195 Supplemental DECLARATION of Kristen Dorrity filed by Defendants Seattle Housing Authority, Thomas Tierney re 154 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Young, Laura) (Entered: 05/20/2011)
196 REPLY, filed by Plaintiffs Marie Townes, Markeletta Wilson, TO RESPONSE to 159 MOTION to Certify Class (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 05/20/2011)

05/20/2011 05/20/2011 05/24/2011
05/25/2011 05/26/2011 05/29/2011 06/01/2011
06/02/2011 06/03/2011 06/23/2011 08/01/2011

197 REPLY, filed by Plaintiffs Marie Townes, Markeletta Wilson, TO RESPONSE to 173 MOTION supplement record regarding summary judgment re 160 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 05/20/2011)
198 REPLY, filed by Plaintiffs Marie Townes, Markeletta Wilson, TO RESPONSE to 160 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 05/20/2011)
199 NOTICE of Hearing 159 MOTION to Certify Class, 154 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 160 MOTION for Summary Judgment : ORAL ARGUMENT/Motion Hearing set for 6/22/2011 at 04:00 PM in Courtroom 14206 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. Each side is allowed 20 minutes for oral argument, including rebuttal. (RM) (Entered: 05/24/2011)
200 ORDER granting 173 Plaintiffs' Motion to supplement record regarding plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(MD) (Entered: 05/26/2011)
201 NOTICE of Unavailability of counsel Nicholas Broten Straley for Plaintiffs Marie Townes, Markeletta Wilson from August 1, 2011 to August 21, 2011. (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 05/26/2011)
202 RESPONSE, by Defendant Seattle Housing Authority, to 176 MOTION for Leave to File 5th Amended Complaint. (Dorrity, Kristen) (Entered: 05/29/2011)
203 NOTICE of Rescheduled Hearing 159 MOTION to Certify Class, 154 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 160 MOTION for Summary Judgment : ORAL ARGUMENT/Motion Hearing set for 6/24/2011 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 14206 before Judge Marsha J. Pechman. Each side is allowed one hour for argument, including rebuttal. (RM) (Entered: 06/01/2011)
204 ANSWER to 111 Amended Complaint (Plaintiff's Fourth) by Seattle Housing Authority.(Dorrity, Kristen) (Entered: 06/02/2011)
205 REPLY, filed by Plaintiffs Marie Townes, Markeletta Wilson, TO RESPONSE to 176 MOTION for Leave to File 5th Amended Complaint (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 06/03/2011)
206 NOTICE striking hearing scheduled for 6/24/2011 regarding 159 MOTION to Certify Class, 154 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 160 MOTION for Summary Judgment (RM) (Entered: 06/23/2011)
207 Stipulated MOTION for Stay of Proceedings by Defendant Seattle Housing Authority. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 8/1/2011, (Dorrity, Kristen) (Entered: 08/01/2011)

08/04/2011 08/23/2011 09/08/2011 09/08/2011 09/08/2011
09/08/2011
09/15/2011 09/20/2011 11/09/2011 11/09/2011 11/09/2011

208 ORDER denying 207 Stipulated Motion for Stay of Proceedings; signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(SC) (Entered: 08/04/2011)
209 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Rebecca S Engrav on behalf of Plaintiffs Marie Townes, Markeletta Wilson. (Engrav, Rebecca) (Entered: 08/23/2011)
210 Joint MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Plaintiffs Marie Townes, Markeletta Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 9/8/2011, (Engrav, Rebecca) (Entered: 09/08/2011)
211 Joint Stipulated MOTION for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Settlement Agreement by Plaintiffs Marie Townes, Markeletta Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) Noting Date 9/8/2011, (Engrav, Rebecca) (Entered: 09/08/2011)
212 DECLARATION of Merf Ehman In Support of Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class Action Settlement filed by Plaintiffs Marie Townes, Markeletta Wilson re 211 Joint Stipulated MOTION for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Settlement Agreement (Engrav, Rebecca) (Entered: 09/08/2011)
213 DECLARATION of Nick Straley in Support of Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class Action Settlement filed by Plaintiffs Marie Townes, Markeletta Wilson re 211 Joint Stipulated MOTION for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Settlement Agreement (Engrav, Rebecca) (Entered: 09/08/2011)
214 ORDER granting 210 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(SC) (Entered: 09/15/2011)
215 PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ORDER 211 Stipulated Motion for preliminary approval of proposed Class Action Settlement. Fairness Hearing set for 1/9/2012 at 04:00 PM before Judge Marsha J. Pechman, by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(MD) (Entered: 09/20/2011)
216 MOTION for Attorney Fees , Costs and Incentive payments by Plaintiffs Marie Townes, Markeletta Wilson. Oral Argument Requested. Noting Date 1/9/2012, (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 11/09/2011)
217 DECLARATION of Merf Ehman filed by Plaintiffs Marie Townes, Markeletta Wilson re 216 MOTION for Attorney Fees , Costs and Incentive payments (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 11/09/2011)
218 DECLARATION of Nicholas B, Straley filed by Plaintiffs Marie Townes, Markeletta Wilson re 216 MOTION for Attorney Fees , Costs and Incentive payments (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 11/09/2011)

11/09/2011

219 DECLARATION of Marie Townes filed by Plaintiffs Marie Townes, Markeletta Wilson re 216 MOTION for Attorney Fees , Costs and Incentive payments (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 11/09/2011)

11/09/2011

220 DECLARATION of Markeletta Wilson filed by Plaintiffs Marie Townes, Markeletta Wilson re 216 MOTION for Attorney Fees , Costs and Incentive payments (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 11/09/2011)

11/10/2011 12/07/2011 12/19/2011 01/03/2012

221 DECLARATION of mailing Notices of Proposed Class Settlement filed by Plaintiffs Marie Townes, Markeletta Wilson re 211 Joint Stipulated MOTION for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Settlement Agreement (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 11/10/2011)
222 NOTICE of Unavailability of counsel Kristen Dorrity for Defendants Seattle Housing Authority, Thomas Tierney from 12/24/2011 to 01/03/2012. (Dorrity, Kristen) (Entered: 12/07/2011)
223 RESPONSE, by Defendant Seattle Housing Authority, to 216 MOTION for Attorney Fees , Costs and Incentive payments. (Dorrity, Kristen) (Entered: 12/19/2011)
224 REPLY, filed by Plaintiffs Marie Townes, Markeletta Wilson, TO RESPONSE to 216 MOTION for Attorney Fees , Costs and Incentive payments (Straley, Nicholas) (Entered: 01/03/2012)

01/09/2012

226 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Marsha J. Pechman- Dep Clerk: Rhonda Miller; Pla Counsel: Merl Ehman, Nicholas Straley; Def Counsel: James Fearn, Laura Young, Kristin Johnson; CR: Barry Fanning; Motion Hearing held on 1/9/2012 211 Joint Stipulated MOTION for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Settlement Agreement filed by Markeletta Wilson, Marie Townes. No objections received and no one present to offer objections. Court approves class action settlement, awards class counsel fees and costs of $180,000.00 and awards incentive payments of $10,000.00 to Ms. Wilson and $5,000.00 to Ms. Townes. (RM) (Entered: 01/10/2012)

01/10/2012 04/04/2012

225 FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT Granting approval of Class Action Settlement by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (MD) (Entered: 01/10/2012)
227 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing held on 1/9/2012

Parties have ten (10) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Information regarding the policy can be found on the court's website at www.wawd.uscourts.gov.
To purchase a copy of the transcript contact court reporter Barry Fanning by telephone at 206-370-8507. or by e-mail at barry_fanning@wawd.uscourts.gov.
. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/3/2012, (BF) (Entered: 04/04/2012)
03/11/2013 229 Redacted STATUS REPORT by Defendant Seattle Housing Authority. (Means, Donald) (Entered: 03/11/2013)

 
 Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 1 Filed 02/20/09 Page 1 of 27

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 1 Filed 02/20/09 Page 2 of 27

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 1 Filed 02/20/09 Page 3 of 27

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 1 Filed 02/20/09 Page 4 of 27

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 1 Filed 02/20/09 Page 5 of 27

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 1 Filed 02/20/09 Page 6 of 27

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 1 Filed 02/20/09 Page 7 of 27

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 1 Filed 02/20/09 Page 8 of 27

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 1 Filed 02/20/09 Page 9 of 27

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 1 Filed 02/20/09 Page 10 of 27

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 1 Filed 02/20/09 Page 11 of 27

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 1 Filed 02/20/09 Page 12 of 27

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 1 Filed 02/20/09 Page 13 of 27

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 1 Filed 02/20/09 Page 14 of 27

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 1 Filed 02/20/09 Page 15 of 27

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 1 Filed 02/20/09 Page 16 of 27

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 1 Filed 02/20/09 Page 17 of 27

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 1 Filed 02/20/09 Page 18 of 27

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 1 Filed 02/20/09 Page 19 of 27

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 1 Filed 02/20/09 Page 20 of 27

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 1 Filed 02/20/09 Page 21 of 27

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 1 Filed 02/20/09 Page 22 of 27

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 1 Filed 02/20/09 Page 23 of 27

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 1 Filed 02/20/09 Page 24 of 27

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 1 Filed 02/20/09 Page 25 of 27

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 1 Filed 02/20/09 Page 26 of 27

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 1 Filed 02/20/09 Page 27 of 27

 
 Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 1 of 65

1 THE HONORABLE MARSHA J. PECHMAN
2

3

4

5

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

7

AT SEATTLE

8 MARKELETTA WILSON, MARIE TOWNES, and all other similarly situated
9 individuals,

CLASS ACTION No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

10

Plaintiffs,

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND

11

vs.

DECLARATORY RELIEF AND MONETARY DAMAGES

12 SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY, and THOMAS TIERNEY, Executive Director of

13 the Seattle Housing Authority, in his Official Capacity, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT

14 OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, and SHAUN DONOVAN,

15 Secretary for United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, in his

16 Official Capacity,

17

Defendants.

18

19 I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
20 1.1 The plaintiffs, Markeletta Wilson and Marie Townes, bring this complaint against
21 the defendants, Seattle Housing Authority (SHA) and its Executive Director, Thomas Tierney,
22 on behalf of themselves and on behalf of a class of all people whom the SHA defendants have
23

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 1 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 2 of 65

1 terminated from the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program in the last six years. In

2 addition, Ms. Wilson seeks to represent a subclass of all disabled people whom the SHA

3 defendants have terminated from the Section 8 Voucher program in the last six years. Ms.

4 Townes seeks to represent a second class of all people whom the SHA defendants have required

5 or will require to prove that they have legal custody of children living in their homes and all

6 people who have not been able to add close family members to their households because of

7 SHA’s policy that bars unmarried, related adults from living together. The plaintiffs also bring

8 additional claims against the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development

9 (HUD) and against Shaun Donovan, HUD Secretary, in his official capacity, pursuant to the

10 Court’s order granting SHA’s motion to join HUD as a required party pursuant to CR 19(a).

11

1.2 The defendants, SHA and Thomas Tierney (hereinafter “SHA” or “SHA

12 defendants”), administer the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program in Seattle Washington,

13 a federal housing program for extremely low income Seattle residents. The SHA defendants

14 have engaged in a pattern and practice of terminating Section 8 Vouchers without providing

15 Voucher holders with due process of law and without complying with other applicable legal

16 requirements. The SHA defendant have failed to provide Section 8 Voucher holders with pre-

17 termination, informal grievance hearings that meet constitutional, statutory and regulatory

18 requirements, have intentionally discriminated against Ms. Wilson and other disabled people by

19 refusing to provide them with reasonable accommodations, have imposed rules and policies that

20 have a disparate impact upon disabled people, have intentionally discriminated against Ms.

21 Townes and other voucherholders and public housing tenants who live with children in their

22 homes or propose to do so, have imposed rules or policies that have a disparate impact upon

23 families with children, have illegally barred families from living together, and have misled the

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 2 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 3 of 65

1 plaintiffs and the other members of the plaintiff class regarding their rights to seek and receive

2 review of the SHA defendants’ decisions to terminate their Section 8 Vouchers.

3

1.3 While SHA has its own independent obligations to comply with its constitutional

4 and legal obligations, to the extent the Court finds that the SHA policies, practices and customs

5 challenged by plaintiffs’ comply with applicable HUD regulations, those HUD regulations are

6 unconstitutional. Under these circumstances, HUD has also violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional

7 rights to due process of law by promulgating regulations which deprive the plaintiffs’ of a

8 protected property interest, their Vouchers, without appropriate procedural protections.

9

1.4 The plaintiffs ask the Court to certify this matter as a class action lawsuit pursuant

10 to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and certify a Voucherholder class and a separate disabled Voucher

11 holder subclass and a second Assisted Families class as described below. Ms. Wilson and Ms.

12 Townes also ask the Court: (a) To declare that the SHA and HUD defendants’ actions have

13 violated the United States and Washington constitutions, and applicable federal and state laws

14 and regulations; (b) to enjoin the SHA and HUD defendants from continuing their illegal actions

15 and to require that the SHA defendants provide informal hearings that comply with applicable

16 laws to all people terminated from the Section 8 Voucher program within the last six years; (c) to

17 enjoin SHA from continuing to discriminate against families with children by requiring them to

18 produce documents of court awarded custody before approving the admission of children to their

19 households; and (d) to enjoin SHA from refusing to allow unmarried, related adults to live

20 together. The plaintiffs also seek an award of monetary damages against the SHA defendants

21 arising out of the SHA defendants’ unlawful actions and an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees

22 and costs associated with bringing this action against both the SHA and HUD defendants.

23

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 3 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 4 of 65

1

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2

2.1 This Court has jurisdiction over the federal claims presented in this action

3 pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 702, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1343, 42 U.S.C. § 3613, and 29

4 U.S.C. § 794a. The plaintiffs bring their federal claims against the SHA defendants pursuant to

5 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 1437; 29 U.S.C. § 794a; and 42 U.S.C.

6 §§ 12133 and 12188, their applicable implementing regulations. The plaintiffs bring their

7 federal claims against HUD and Secretary Donovan pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 702, 42 U.S.C. §

8 3601 et seq., 29 U.S.C. § 794a, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 12133 and 12188. The Court has supplemental

9 jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

10

2.2 Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Western District of

11 Washington because the defendant, SHA, is an entity located and doing business within western

12 Washington, the defendant Tom Tierney, is a resident of western Washington, and all or most of

13 the events relevant to the claims and causes of action herein alleged occurred within western

14 Washington.

15

III. PARTIES

16

3.1 Plaintiff, Markeletta Wilson, is a woman currently living in Seattle, Washington.

17

3.2 Plaintiff, Marie Townes, is a woman currently living in Seattle, Washington.

18

3.3 Ms. Wilson and Ms. Townes bring this action on behalf of themselves and as

19 representative plaintiffs of a class of other similarly situated people described as:

20

(a) All people whom the defendants, Seattle Housing Authority and Thomas Tierney,

21 have terminated from the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program since February 22, 2003

22 and all people whom the defendants will terminate from the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher

23 program in the future (hereinafter “Voucherholder Class”).

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 4 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 5 of 65

1

3.4 Ms. Wilson also seeks to represent a subclass of other similarly situated people

2 described as:

3

(a) All people living with a disability and all people who live with a household

4 member living with a disability, whom the defendants, Seattle Housing Authority and Thomas

5 Teirney, have terminated from the Section 8 Housing Voucher program since February 22, 2003

6 and all such people whom the defendants will terminate in the future (hereinafter “Disabled

7 Voucherholder Subclass”).

8

3.5 Ms. Townes also seeks to represent a class of other similarly situated people

9 described as:

10

(a) All people whom the defendants, Seattle Housing Authority and Thomas Tierney,

11 have required or will require to show proof that they have court approved legal custody of any

12 children with whom they live at the time they seek admission to the Voucher or Public Housing

13 programs or at any time after being admitted to either program and all people who have sought

14 or will seek to add a person related by blood or by close familial relation to any household

15 assisted by SHA. (hereinafter “Assisted FamiliesClass”).

16

3.6 Defendant, Seattle Housing Authority, is a public housing authority established

17 pursuant to RCW 35.82 et. seq.. SHA is a “public body corporate and politic” authorized to

18 exercise governmental powers and duties under the laws of the State of Washington.

19

3.7 SHA administers and operates the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program

20 (hereinafter “Section 8 Voucher program”) and the Low Income Public Housing program

21 (hereinafter, “Public Housing program”) pursuant to federal funds provided for those purposes. 22 SHA’s offices are located at 120 6th Ave. N., Seattle, WA 98109.

23

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 5 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 6 of 65

1

3.8 Defendant Thomas Tierney is the Executive Director of SHA. He is responsible

2 for implementing and administering SHA’s programs and policies, including those associated

3 with the Section 8 Voucher program. He is named in his official capacity only.

4

3.9 Defendant United States Department of Housing and Urban Development is the

5 federal agency authorized and required to operate and administer the Section 8 Voucher program

6 in the United States.

7

3.10 HUD sets policy and procedures related to the Section 8 Voucher program with

8 which local public housing authorities, like SHA, must comply.

9

3.11 Defendant Shaun Donovan is the Secretary of HUD. He is responsible for

10 implementing and administering HUD’s programs and policies, including those associated with

11 the Section 8 Voucher program. He is named in his official capacity only.

12

3.12 Hereinafter HUD and Secretary Donovan shall be referred to as “HUD” or the

13 “HUD defendants”.

14

3.13 All of the actions described herein taken by the defendant SHA, the defendant

15 Thomas Tierney, SHA’s directors, officers, employees or agents constitute state action and were

16 actions taken under color of state law.

17

IV. FACTS REGARDING SHA’S SECTION 8 VOUCHER PROGRAM

18

4.1 The Section 8 Voucher program is administered nationally by HUD.

19

4.2 HUD contracts with thousands of “public housing authorities” (PHAs) across the

20 country to run Section 8 Voucher programs in local areas.

21

4.3 SHA is the PHA that operates the Section 8 Voucher program in Seattle,

22 Washington.

23

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 6 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 7 of 65

1

4.4 Through its Section 8 Voucher program, SHA pays a share of the rents charged

2 by private landlords from whom Voucher program participants (hereinafter “Voucher holders” or

3 “participants”) lease homes.

4

4.5 SHA receives federal Section 8 funds from the federal government through HUD

5 from which SHA pays Voucher holders’ private landlords.

6

4.6 SHA keeps a portion of these federal Section 8 funds for its own purposes as

7 administrative fees for running the Section 8 Voucher program.

8

4.7 HUD has issued regulations, policies and procedures related to the Voucher

9 program, including regulations, policies and procedures related to the grievance process to which

10 a Voucher holder is entitled prior to termination of that Voucher.

11

4.8 SHA has issued its own policies and procedures related to the Voucher program

12 including written policies and procedures related to the Voucher termination grievance process.

13

4.9 In addition to explicit written, policies and procedures, SHA also has a number of

14 informal procedures, practices and customs related to its Voucher termination grievance process.

15

4.10 Individuals and families must meet certain eligibility criteria in order to qualify to

16 participate in SHA’s Section 8 Voucher program.

17

4.11 Most individuals and families who receive Vouchers through SHA earn less than

18 30% of the area median income when accepted into the program.

19

4.12 30% of the median income in Seattle is $25,300 per year for a family of four.

20

4.13 Because of their extremely limited incomes, most Section 8 Voucher holders

21 would be unable to afford to pay rents on the private rental market in Seattle without the federal

22 Section 8 Voucher rental subsidy.

23

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 7 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 8 of 65

1

4.14 Consequently, many Section 8 Voucher holders would be homeless if SHA

2 terminated their Section 8 Vouchers.

3

4.15 A Section 8 Voucher holder has a constitutionally protected property interest in

4 the continued receipt of Section 8 Voucher benefits.

5

4.16 SHA cannot terminate this constitutionally protected property interest without

6 providing a Voucher holder pre-termination, procedural due process protections, including

7 appropriate notice and an adequate opportunity to be heard.

8

4.17 SHA cannot terminate this constitutionally protected property interest without

9 having good cause to do so and without proving that such good cause exists.

10

4.18 SHA cannot interfere with a Voucher holder’s right to seek appropriate,

11 subsequent review of an adverse informal hearing decision and of SHA’s decision to terminate

12 this constitutionally protected property interest.

13

4.19 SHA must provide Voucher holders with accurate and complete written

14 information regarding their hearing rights or their rights to further review following the informal

15 hearing while terminating this constitutionally protected property interest.

16

4.20 HUD has issued regulations that lay out the permissible bases upon which SHA

17 may terminate a participant’s Section 8 Voucher. Those regulations are found at 24 C.F.R. §

18 982.551-.553.

19

4.21 HUD has also issued regulations that lay out some of the steps that the SHA

20 defendants must follow before they can terminate a participant’s Section 8 Voucher. Those

21 regulations are found at 24 C.F.R. § 982.555.

22

23

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 8 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 9 of 65

1

4.22 SHA has other policies, practices and customs related to the Section 8 Voucher

2 program and its informal hearing process that are not included or spelled out in its Section 8

3 Administrative Plan or in any other written documents.

4

4.23 Washington state law requires the SHA defendants to operate the Section 8

5 Voucher program in compliance with federal statutory and regulatory requirements. See e.g.

6 RCW 35.82.070(14); 35.82.200.

7

4.24 Because SHA is a public entity and state actor, it must comply with all procedural

8 protections required by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United

9 States Constitution and to the Due Process Clause of the Washington Constitution before

10 terminating any participant’s Section 8 Voucher.

11

4.25 Because HUD is a federal governmental entity, it must provide the plaintiffs with

12 Due Process of law pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution before the

13 plaintiffs’ Vouchers may be lawfully terminated.

14

4.26 The HUD regulations do not explicitly lay out all of the steps and procedural

15 protections that the SHA defendants must provide before finally terminating a participant’s

16 Section 8 Voucher.

17

4.27 Pursuant to the Washington and United States constitutions, federal and state

18 statutes and federal regulations, prior to terminating a participant’s benefits, the SHA defendants

19 must provide the participant with an adequate written notice of the basis for the proposed

20 termination and of the participant’s right to a pre-termination grievance hearing, called an

21 “informal hearing.”

22

4.28 The SHA defendants may not terminate a Section 8 Voucher for reasons not

23 clearly set forth in the written termination notice.

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 9 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 10 of 65

1

4.29 A “hearing officer” presides over the informal hearing.

2

4.30 Pursuant to the Washington and United States constitutions, federal and state

3 statutes and federal regulations, each hearing officer must be impartial.

4

4.31 The SHA defendants employ and pay each hearing officer.

5

4.32 Each hearing officer is either the SHA defendants’ employee or is an independent

6 contractor with whom the SHA defendants contract to act as a hearing officer.

7

4.33 If dissatisfied by the hearing officer’s performance, SHA may terminate the

8 hearing officer’s employment or contract.

9

4.34 At all times relevant, each hearing officer was either the SHA defendants’

10 employee acting within the scope of his or her employment or was the SHA defendants’ agent

11 who had the SHA defendants’ apparent and actual authority to act in the manner described

12 herein.

13

4.35 Pursuant to the Washington and United States constitutions, federal and state

14 statutes and federal regulations, the SHA defendants must provide a Voucher holder with an

15 informal hearing at which the SHA defendants must prove that the proposed termination is “in

16 accordance with the law, HUD regulations and PHA policies.” 24 C.F.R. § 982.555(a).

17

4.36 Pursuant to the Washington and United States constitutions, federal and state

18 statutes and federal regulations, the SHA defendants must provide a Voucher holder with an

19 informal hearing at which an impartial hearing officer must determine whether the SHA’s

20 proposed termination is “in accordance with the law, HUD regulations and PHA policies”, 24

21 C.F.R. § 982.555(a), and that the SHA defendants have presented sufficient evidence to meet

22 their burden of persuasion by a preponderance of the evidence.

23

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 10 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 11 of 65

1

4.37 If the hearing officer upholds the SHA’s decision to terminate a Voucher

2 following an informal hearing, the SHA defendants stop making rental payments to the Voucher

3 holder’s landlord.

4

4.38 A hearing officer may not uphold a termination based upon reasons not clearly set

5 forth in the written termination notice.

6

4.39 A Voucher holder who has her Voucher terminated has the right to seek review of

7 SHA’s termination decision and of the decision rendered by the hearing officer in state court

8 pursuant to Washington’s Writ of Review process, set out at RCW 7.16.030-.140.

9

4.40 Pursuant to the Washington and United States constitutions, and federal and state

10 statutes, the SHA defendants must provide each participant with the following procedural

11 protections as part of the informal hearing process:

12

(a) A termination notice that provides accurate and non-misleading information

13 regarding the Voucher holder’s rights and which clearly sets out the alleged bases to support the

14 proposed termination;

15

(b) an impartial hearing officer with the skills, knowledge and training sufficient to

16 properly adjudicate informal hearings and reach appropriate, reasoned and lawful decisions;

17

(c) the opportunity to confront and cross examine adverse witnesses;

18

(d) the opportunity to present witnesses and evidence;

19

(e) the opportunity to retain and be represented by counsel;

20

(f) the opportunity to advance and have the hearing officer fully consider any

21 relevant factual or legal argument;

22

(g) a written decision from the hearing officer that is solely based on the applicable

23 laws, regulations, rules or policies and the arguments and evidence presented at the hearing; that

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 11 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 12 of 65

1 includes a clear and correct statement of the evidence presented, the evidence relied upon and the

2 rationale supporting the decision; that addresses only allegations clearly raised in the termination

3 letter; and that is based solely upon credible, probative evidence and not upon uncorroborated

4 hearsay testimony or evidence;

5

(h) a transcript or official report containing the substance of what transpired at the

6 hearing; and

7

(i) non-misleading written notice of the opportunity, timeline and path to seek review

8 of the defendants’ informal hearing decision.

9

4.41 The SHA defendants may not interfere with a Voucher holder’s right to seek

10 appropriate, subsequent review of an adverse informal hearing decision by providing the

11 Voucher holder with inaccurate information.

12

4.42 The SHA defendants have failed to meet their constitutional, and statutory

13 obligations in their informal hearing processes in the following ways:

14

(a) The SHA defendants have provided Voucher holders with misleading notices that

15 state or imply that Voucher holders have no further recourse to contest SHA’s termination

16 decisions beyond the informal hearing process;

17

(b) the SHA defendants have provided Voucher holders with termination notices that

18 do not clearly spell out the reasons why SHA believes termination is appropriate;

19

(c) the SHA defendants have not properly vetted, trained or supervised all of their

20 hearing officers in order to ensure that all of their hearing officers have the skills, knowledge and

21 training necessary to properly adjudicate informal hearings and reach appropriate, reasoned and

22 lawful decisions;

23

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 12 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 13 of 65

1

(d) the SHA defendants have employed and used hearing officers who are not

2 impartial;

3

(e) the SHA defendants and their hearing officers have had a policy, practice or

4 custom of prohibiting Voucher holders from raising relevant legal arguments or affirmative

5 defenses in informal hearings;

6

(f) the SHA defendants and their hearing officers, when considering whether to

7 overturn defendants’ termination decisions, have had a policy, practice or custom of refusing to

8 consider the following arguments, among others:

9

(1) The Voucher termination would violate the participant’s (or a member of

10

the participant family’s) rights under any law forbidding discrimination on the basis of

11

membership in a protected class;

12

(2) the SHA defendants should not terminate a Voucher because of the

13

existence of a reasonable accommodation to a person’s disability that the defendants have

14

not provided;

15

(3) the termination is barred by an equitable doctrine such as waiver, estoppel,

16

or laches;

17

(4) the termination would be inappropriate in light of mitigating factors such

18

as those contemplated by 24 C.F.R. § 982.552(c)(2);

19

(5) the decision to terminate a Voucher was an abuse of SHA’s discretion

20

considering other similar circumstances; or

21

(6) the termination of assistance would violate the federal or Washington

22

constitutions, a statute or ordinance, or other code, or conflict with the common law of

23

the community;

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 13 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 14 of 65

1

(g) the SHA defendants and their hearing officers have relied solely upon non-

2 credible, non-probative, hearsay testimony or evidence without any corroborating, non-hearsay

3 evidence when terminating participants’ vouchers;

4

(h) the SHA defendants and their hearing officers have not required the SHA

5 defendants to present sufficient evidence to prove their allegations by a preponderance of the

6 evidence;

7

(i) the SHA defendants and their hearing officers have failed or refused to consider

8 evidence presented by Voucher holders;

9

(j) the SHA defendants and their hearing officers have terminated or authorized

10 termination of Vouchers for reasons not listed in the termination letters sent to Voucher holders;

11

(k) the SHA defendants and their hearing officers have provided Voucher holders

12 with misleading information regarding rights to seek review of SHA informal hearing decisions;

13

(l) the SHA defendants and their hearing officers have failed to provide Voucher

14 holders who lose informal hearings with adequate written notice of their right to seek review of

15 those decisions and the process and timelines associated with accessing such review;

16

(m) the SHA Defendants and their hearing officers have interfered with the rights of

17 Voucher holders to obtain subsequent judicial review of adverse informal hearing decisions by

18 failing to properly notify Voucher holders regarding these rights and applicable timelines, by

19 failing to maintain appropriate records documenting what transpired at informal hearings, by

20 failing to maintain copies of documents introduced at informal hearings, by failing to maintain

21 official, verbatim transcripts of informal hearings or the means by which to create such

22 transcripts, and by failing to appropriately notify Voucher holders who seek informal hearings of

23 their right to such an official, verbatim transcripts.

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 14 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 15 of 65

1

4.43 HUD has issued regulations that lay out the procedural steps it requires each

2 PHA, including SHA to follow, when terminating a Voucher.

3

4.44 SHA’s illegal actions set forth in paragraph 4.43 and its subsections violate one or

4 many of these HUD regulations.

5

4.45 In the alternative and to the extent that particular HUD regulations require or

6 authorize SHA to engage in any of the illegal actions set out in paragraphs 4.42 above, then those

7 regulations violate rights secured to the plaintiffs and the other plaintiff class members by the

8 Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and other

9 applicable federal laws, including 42 U.S.C. 1437f, both on their face and as applied under the

10 circumstances set out herein.

11

4.46 Nonetheless, even if particular HUD regulations are unconstitutional, SHA has its

12 own independent responsibility to ensure that its policies, practices and customs comply with the

13 law.

14

4.47 As a PHA, SHA has a legal obligation to “affirmatively further fair housing”.

15

4.48 HUD also has a legal obligation to “affirmatively further fair housing”.

16

4.49 Many of the people whom the SHA defendants have terminated from the Section

17 8 Voucher program, including the plaintiff Markeletta Wilson, are handicapped individuals;

18 people who have physical or mental impairments that substantially limit one or more major life

19 activities, have a record of such impairments, or are regarded as having such impairments.

20

4.50 Many of the people whom the SHA defendants have terminated from the Section

21 8 Voucher program are people with disabilities, including the plaintiff Markeletta Wilson, in that

22 they have sensory, mental, or physical impairments that: (a) are medically cognizable or

23

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 15 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 16 of 65

1 diagnosable; or (b) exist as a record or history; or (c) are perceived to exist whether or not they

2 exist in fact.

3

4.51 Yet, the SHA defendants’ policies, practices and customs and those of their

4 hearing officers have been either to refuse to consider or to deny reasonable accommodations

5 that arise as part of the informal hearing process.

6

4.52 The SHA defendants’ policies, practices or customs and those of their hearing

7 officers have been either to refuse to consider or to deny reasonable accommodations requested

8 as part of the informal hearing process without doing any investigations to determine whether

9 reasonable accommodations may be necessary.

10

4.53 The SHA defendants and their hearing officers had a policy, practice or custom of

11 failing and refusing to consider arguments in informal hearings that a Voucher holder’s Section 8

12 Voucher should not be terminated as a reasonable accommodation to a person’s disability,

13 because of the existence of some other mitigating factor, or because of another equitable doctrine

14 or defense.

15

4.54 The SHA defendants either have a policy, practice, or custom of encouraging their

16 hearing officers to act in this unlawful manner or have failed to adequately supervise hearing

17 officers in order to ensure that they properly follow the law, do not discriminate against disabled

18 people and instead provide Voucher holders with informal hearings that comply with

19 constitutional, statutory and regulatory requirements.

20

4.55 The SHA defendants’ policy, practice or custom denied Ms. Wilson and many

21 other disabled people informal hearings that met requirements imposed by federal and state

22 constitutions, statutes and regulations.

23

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 16 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 17 of 65

1

4.56 The SHA defendants, in operating their Section 8 Voucher program as detailed

2 herein, directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, solely on the basis of

3 handicap:

4

(a) denied Ms. Wilson and other qualified individuals with handicaps the opportunity

5 to participate in, or benefit from, the Section 8 Voucher program;

6

(b) afforded Ms. Wilson and other qualified individuals with handicaps an

7 opportunity to participate in, or benefit from, the Section 8 Voucher program that was not equal

8 to that afforded to others;

9

(c) provided Ms. Wilson and other qualified individuals with handicaps with

10 assistance that was not as effective in affording the individual an equal opportunity to obtain the

11 same result, to gain the same benefit, or to reach the same level of achievement as that provided

12 to others;

13

(d) provided different or separate housing, aid, benefits, or services to Ms. Wilson

14 and other individuals with handicaps from that provided to others that was not necessary to

15 provide those qualified individuals with handicaps with housing, aid, benefits, or services that

16 was as effective as those provided to others; or

17

(e) otherwise limited Ms. Wilson and other qualified individuals with handicaps in

18 the enjoyment of a right, privilege, advantage, or opportunity enjoyed by other qualified

19 individuals receiving the housing, aid, benefit, or service.

20

4.57 The SHA defendants, while operating the Section 8 Voucher program,

21 discriminated against Ms. Wilson and other qualified individuals in the terms, conditions or

22 privileges of the rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection

23 with the rental of a dwelling, because of handicap or disability.

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 17 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 18 of 65

1

4.58 The SHA defendants, while operating the Section 8 Voucher program, have

2 engaged in conduct relating to the provision of housing which otherwise made unavailable or

3 denied dwellings to Ms. Wilson and other qualified individuals because of handicap or disability

4

4.59 The SHA defendants, while operating the Section 8 Voucher program, have

5 discriminated in the rental, or otherwise made unavailable or denied, a dwelling to Ms. Wilson

6 and to other qualified individuals because of Ms. Wilson’s handicap or the handicap of other

7 qualified individuals or the handicap of other people who live or are associated with such people.

8

4.60 The SHA defendants, while operating the Section 8 Voucher program, have

9 discriminated against Ms. Wilson and other qualified individuals in the terms, conditions, or

10 privileges of the rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection

11 with such dwelling, because of a handicap or disability.

12

4.61 The SHA defendants, while operating the Section 8 Voucher program, have not

13 made reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such

14 accommodations may be necessary to afford a handicapped person, like Ms. Wilson and other

15 qualified individuals, equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling unit.

16

4.62 The SHA defendants and their hearing officer failed to properly inform Ms.

17 Wilson of her right to further review of the informal hearing decision and review of SHA’s

18 failure to reasonably accommodate her disability or about how she could access such review

19 when they terminated her from the Section 8 Voucher program.

20

4.63 The SHA defendants’ policies, practices or customs and those of their hearing

21 officers have had severe, negative and disproportionate impacts upon people with disabilities or

22 handicapped people.

23

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 18 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 19 of 65

1

4.64 The SHA defendants’ policies, practices or customs set out in paragraphs 4.42,

2 4.51-4.62 violate applicable anti-discrimination, federal and state laws, including applicable

3 HUD regulations.

4

4.65 If HUD regulations authorize or require SHA to engage in the illegal actions set

5 forth in those paragraphs, those HUD regulations violate applicable federal anti-discrimination

6 laws. Those HUD regulations are therefore illegal on their face and as applied under the

7 circumstances alleged herein.

8

4.66 If HUD’s regulations authorize or require the SHA defendants to act illegally as

9 set out above, then HUD has acted illegally by promulgating regulations that violate applicable

10 federal anti-discrimination laws.

11

4.67 Under these circumstances, HUD has also acted illegally in violation of rights

12 provided to the plaintiffs and the plaintiff class members under applicable federal anti-

13 discrimination laws, including the Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. § 3604; § 504 of the

14 Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.

15 § 1213 by approving SHA’s explicit, written, illegal, and discriminatory policies.

16

4.68 SHA requires that a voucherholder receive prior permission from SHA before the

17 voucherholder may add any individual to her household.

18

4.69 SHA has a policy, custom or practice of requiring any voucherholder who seeks

19 to add a child to her household to prove that the voucherholder or another existing member of the

20 household has legal custody of such child.

21

4.70 SHA has a policy, custom or practice of requiring that voucherholders prove such

22 legal custody by presenting SHA with legal documents demonstrating that a court has awarded

23 formal custody to the voucherholder or adult family member.

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 19 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 20 of 65

1

4.71 SHA has a policy, custom or practice of refusing to consider less formal proof of

2 custody.

3

4.72 SHA follows the same policy, custom or practice in its Low Income Public

4 Housing program (Public Housing program).

5

4.73 SHA owns buildings and rents apartments or units to low income households

6 through its Public Housing program.

7

4.74 SHA receives federal funds administered by HUD for this purpose.

8

4.75 Public housing tenants pay roughly 30% of their adjusted gross income as rent to

9 SHA.

10

4.76 SHA may not evict public housing tenants except for good cause.

11

4.77 SHA requires public housing tenants to get SHA’s prior permission before adding

12 a child to a public housing household.

13

4.78 SHA may attempt to evict a public housing tenant who allows a child to come live

14 in her household without prior SHA permission.

15

4.79 As in the Section 8 program, SHA has a policy, custom or practice in its Public

16 Housing program of requiring any public housing tenant who seeks to add a child to her

17 household to prove that the public housing tenant or another existing member of the household

18 has legal custody of such child.

19

4.80 Any voucherholder or public housing tenant subject to this SHA policy, custom or

20 practice may have to undertake lengthy, expensive, and inconvenient legal proceedings in order

21 to satisfy SHA’s policy, custom or practice.

22

4.81 Many voucherholders and public housing tenants are unable to satisfy this SHA

23 policy, custom or practice, because they do not have the means to seek court approval.

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 20 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 21 of 65

1

4.82 Ms. Townes and the other members of the class are members of households that

2 include or propose to include one or more individuals who have not attained the age of eighteen

3 years.

4

4.83 Ms. Townes and the other members of the class are parents or other people having

5 legal custody of children under the age of 18, or are the designees of such parents or other

6 persons having such legal custody, with the written permissions of such parents or other persons,

7 or are people who are in the process of securing legal custody of any individual who has not

8 attained the age of eighteen years.

9

4.84 SHA has intentionally discriminated against families with children by instituting

10 and following this policy, custom or practice.

11

4.85 This policy, custom or practice has disparate impact upon families with children

12 in that it requires voucherholders and public housing tenants to engage in lengthy, costly and

13 inconvenient legal proceedings before adding children to a household.

14

4.86 Many of the people whom the SHA defendants have terminated from the Section

15 8 Voucher program, including the plaintiff Marie Townes, and from the Public Housing program

16 are individuals who live with children in their households, have sought to add children to their

17 households, or will seek to add children to their households.

18

4.87 SHA required Ms. Townes to provide formal, court approved legal documents

19 demonstrating that she had court approved, legal custody of her own daughter.

20

4.88 SHA refused to accept documents that Ms. Townes provided demonstrating that

21 her daughter’s father agreed to residential placement of the child in her home.

22

23

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 21 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 22 of 65

1

4.89 SHA terminated Ms. Townes because she did not provide SHA with formal, court

2 approved legal documents demonstrating that she had court approved, legal custody of her

3 daughter.

4

4.90 SHA’s hearing officer upheld SHA’s termination of Ms. Townes voucher because

5 she failed to provide SHA with formal, court approved legal documents demonstrating that she

6 had court approved, legal custody of her daughter.

7

4.91 SHA has required other voucherholders and public housing tenants to present

8 similar “proof” of court approved legal custody arrangements before SHA will authorize such

9 voucherholders to add children to their households.

10

4.92 SHA has terminated other former voucherholders and attempted to evict public

11 housing tenants for failure to provide SHA with such proof.

12

4.93 SHA has refused to admit households that have applied for admittance to the

13 Voucher or Public Housing programs, because those households have not provided SHA with

14 “proof” of court awarded custody of all children living in the households or all children whom

15 the applicants seek to add to their households.

16

4.94 Other voucherholders and public housing tenants have either been unable to add

17 children to their households because they could not meet SHA’s onerous and illegal policy,

18 custom or practice or have had to undertake complicated, protracted and expensive court

19 proceedings prior to adding children to their households.

20

4.95 SHA also violates the rights of its assisted households to free association with

21 close relatives and family members by barring any unmarried, related adults from living together

22 absent proof that such co-habitation is necessary as a reasonable accommodation to a disabled

23 individual.

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 22 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 23 of 65

1

4.96 Chapter 7 of SHA's Section 8 Voucher Administrative Plan states in part,

2 "Related adults may be added to a household only as a disability accommodation for the head of

3 household or the head of household's dependent(s). SHA may consider the addition of related

4 adults when the household can demonstrate that it is necessary and reasonable for them to

5 provide medical/life activities care for the related adult(s). Example: A head of household

6 demonstrates that her disabled, elderly mother needs to come and live with her, for reasons

7 related to her disability."

8

4.97 SHA has enforced this policy by refusing to allow close related family members

9 to live together.

10

4.98 SHA has terminated voucherholders who allow close related family members to

11 live with them in violation of SHA’s prohibition.

12

4.99 Voucherholder families have been unable to live with close family members

13 because of SHA’s prohibition.

14

4.100 SHA may follow similar prohibitions in its other housing programs, including its

15 Public Housing program.

16

4.101 SHA’s admissions policies that limit or prohibit children and adults from being

17 admitted to SHA assisted householdes are not narrowly or reasonably tailored to affect any

18 legitimate governmental interests and constitute undue burdens upon families’ rights of free

19 association.

20

4.102 SHA continues to enforce these onerous and illegal policies, customs and

21 practices against present voucherholders and public housing tenants, and will continue to do so

22 in the future, absent a court order prohibiting these practices.

23

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 23 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 24 of 65

1

4.103 The SHA defendants’ hearing officers continue to uphold voucher terminations

2 based upon failure to comply with these onerous and illegal policy, custom or practice and will

3 continue to do so in the future, absent a court order prohibiting the practice.

4

4.104 The SHA defendants either have a policy, practice, or custom of encouraging their

5 hearing officers to act in this unlawful manner or have failed to adequately supervise hearing

6 officers in order to ensure that they properly follow the law and do not discriminate against

7 families with children or violate families’ rights to privacy and freedom of association.

8

4.105 The SHA defendants, in operating their Section 8 Voucher program and Public

9 Housing program as detailed herein, directly or through contractual, licensing, or other

10 arrangements, solely on the basis of familial status have:

11

(a) denied Ms. Townes and other qualified individuals the opportunity to participate

12 in, or benefit from, the Section 8 Voucher program or Public Housing program;

13

(b) afforded Ms. Townes and other qualified individuals an opportunity to participate

14 in, or benefit from, the Section 8 Voucher program or Public Housing program that was not

15 equal to that afforded to others;

16

(c) provided Ms. Townes and other qualified individuals with assistance that was not

17 as effective in affording the individual an equal opportunity to obtain the same result, to gain the

18 same benefit, or to reach the same level of achievement as that provided to others;

19

(d) provided different or separate housing, aid, benefits, or services to Ms. Townes

20 and other qualified individuals from that provided to others that was not necessary to provide

21 those qualified individuals with housing, aid, benefits, or services that was as effective as those

22 provided to others; or

23

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 24 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 25 of 65

1

(e) otherwise limited Ms. Townes and other qualified individuals in the enjoyment of

2 a right, privilege, advantage, or opportunity enjoyed by other qualified individuals receiving the

3 housing, aid, benefit, or service.

4

4.106 The SHA defendants, while operating the Section 8 Voucher and Public Housing

5 programs, discriminated against Ms. Townes and other qualified individuals in the terms,

6 conditions or privileges of the rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in

7 connection with the rental of a dwelling, because of their familial status or because they live or

8 propose to live in households with children.

9

4.107 The SHA defendants, while operating the Section 8 Voucher and Public Housing

10 programs, have engaged in conduct relating to the provision of housing which otherwise made

11 unavailable or denied dwellings to Ms. Townes and other qualified individuals because of their

12 familial status or because they live or propose to live in households with children.

13

4.108 The SHA defendants, while operating the Section 8 Voucher and Public Housing

14 programs, have discriminated in the rental, or otherwise made unavailable or denied, a dwelling

15 to Ms. Townes and to other qualified individuals because of their familial status or because they

16 live with or propose to live with children.

17

4.109 The SHA defendants, while operating the Section 8 Voucher and Public Housing

18 programs, have discriminated against Ms. Townes and other qualified individuals in the terms,

19 conditions, or privileges of the rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in

20 connection with such dwelling, because of their familial status or because they live with or

21 propose to live with children.

22

23

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 25 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 26 of 65

1

4.110 The SHA defendants’ policies, practices or customs and those of their hearing

2 officers have had severe, negative and disproportionate impacts upon people living with children

3 or people who propose to live with children or because of their familial status.

4

4.111 The SHA defendants’ policies, practices, customs and actions alleged in

5 paragraphs 4.69 through 4.110 violate rights guaranteed the plaintiff and the plaintiff class by the

6 United States and Washington constitutions, and by other federal and state laws that prohibit

7 discrimination against families with children and that prohibit infringement upon the right of

8 individuals to freedom of association and intimate familial privacy.

9

4.112 The consequences of the loss of a Section 8 Voucher or Public Housing

10 subsidized apartment are devastating for participating families.

11

4.113 When the SHA defendants terminate payments to a Voucher holder’s landlord,

12 the Voucher holder and her family are often unable to pay the full amount of rent due.

13

4.114 Many are forced to move out of their homes or are evicted after the SHA

14 defendants’ terminate their Vouchers, rendering those families homeless.

15

4.115 Public Housing tenants face eviction for failing to provide the documentation

16 demanded by SHA.

17

4.116 A termination decision or eviction has other long lasting and severe consequences

18 for all of the members of the family involved.

19

4.117 A Voucher termination or Public Housing eviction may detrimentally affect a

20 family’s ability to find any housing, even unsubsidized housing.

21

4.118 Many prospective landlords refuse to rent to tenants who have been evicted in the

22 past.

23

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 26 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 27 of 65

1

4.119 And so, if a family is evicted from their home, the record of that eviction will

2 make it much more difficult for the family to find new housing, even if they can afford the full

3 rent.

4

4.120 Termination for violation of program rules also may make all members of that

5 family ineligible to receive a new Voucher or other types of federal housing assistance for many

6 years. See e.g., 24 C.F.R. § 982.552(c)(iii) (allowing a PHA to deny admission to the Voucher

7 program to any person whose family member has ever had a Voucher terminated by that or any

8 other PHA).

9

4.121 The disruption caused to children from the loss of their home can be life altering.

10 Newly homeless children are uprooted from their familiar surroundings, lose touch with their

11 friends and classmates, suffer severe set-backs in their education, and witness the familial stress

12 that severe economic turmoil creates.

13

4.122 Even if a family is able to find the funds to remain in their home, the loss of the

14 Voucher subsidy means that the family’s marginal economic circumstances become even worse.

15

4.123 The family must cut back on other essential areas in order to fund their newly

16 increased housing costs.

17

4.124 The family’s credit may suffer as other bills go unpaid so that the family can

18 afford to pay their increased rental share.

19

4.125 Families that are not allowed to live with related children or close family suffer

20 additional financial and emotional harms as a result.

21

22

23

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 27 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 28 of 65

1

V. FACTS REGARDING THE REPRESENTATIVE

PLAINTIFF MARIE TOWNES

2

5.1 The Plaintiff, Marie Townes, held a Section 8 Voucher with SHA from May 14,

3

2005 until SHA terminated her by written informal hearing decision dated March 8, 2006.

4

5.2 Prior to coming to Seattle, Ms. Townes and her three daughters lived in Renton,

5

Washington and participated in the Renton Housing Authority’s Section 8 Voucher program.

6

5.3 Because Ms. Townes had four people in her household, herself and her three

7

daughters, she was eligible for and received a 3 bedroom Voucher from SHA.

8

5.4 When she received her Voucher from SHA, she signed documents indicating that

9

she would be living in her apartment with her three daughters, I’Reesha, I’Mani and Malayshaa.

10

5.5 In June 2005, Ms. Townes informed SHA in writing and again by telephone that

11

Malayshaa, who was one year-old at the time, had gone to live with her father Brad Martin.

12

5.6 At SHA’s request, Ms. Townes met with SHA personnel to discuss the

13

arrangement. At this meeting she again informed SHA in person and in writing that her daughter

14

had gone to live with Mr. Martin.

15

5.7 At this meeting, SHA personnel told Ms. Townes that they did not believe that

16

Malayshaa had ever lived with Ms. Townes because Ms. Townes had not claimed Malayshaa as

17

a dependent for her TANF benefits (which made the amount Ms. Townes received from TANF

18

lower than the amount she would have received if she claimed Malayshaa).

19

5.8 SHA personnel stated that Ms. Townes needed to prove that she had “legal

20

custody” of Malayshaa during the time she had been participating in the SHA Voucher program.

21

5.9 SHA personnel informed Ms. Townes that if she did not provide this “proof,” she

22

would be downsized to a 2 bedroom Voucher.

23

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 28 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 29 of 65

1

5.10 On August 31, 2005, Ms. Townes provided SHA with a notarized statement

2 signed by Mr. Martin that he was returning Malayshaa to Ms. Townes’s care as of August 29,

3 2005.

4

5.11 Ms. Townes heard nothing more about this matter until she received a termination

5 letter dated December 13, 2005 from SHA.

6

5.12 In its termination letter, SHA alleged that termination was appropriate because

7 SHA believed that Malayshaa did not actually live with Ms. Townes while she participated in

8 SHA’s Section 8 Voucher program.

9

5.13 In its termination letter, SHA wrote: “Based upon the information received to-

10 date, SHA continues to believe that your daughter, Malayshaa Townes, has never resided in your

11 household.”

12

5.14 SHA refused to accept Ms. Townes’ proof and instead required that she present

13 them with legal documents demonstrating that a court has granted Ms. Townes’ formal custody

14 over her daughter Malayshaa Townes.

15

5.15 SHA terminated Ms. Townes’ voucher because she could not present it with such

16 proof within the time SHA required.

17

5.16 Ms. Townes sought and received an informal hearing after receiving this

18 termination letter.

19

5.17 Lawrence Weldon, SHA’s hearing officer, conducted the informal hearing.

20

5.18 At the hearing, SHA presented no direct, credible, probative, non-hearsay

21 evidence that Malayshaa did not live with Ms. Townes during the Spring and Fall of 2005.

22

5.19 Instead, SHA relied upon a printout from the Department of Social and Health

23 Services indicating that Ms. Townes’s claimed only two dependents for her TANF benefits as its

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 29 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 30 of 65

1 sole proof that Malayshaa had not lived with Ms. Townes at any time while participating in

2 SHA’s Voucher program.

3

5.20 Mr. Weldon made no determination regarding the credibility or probative value of

4 the hearsay evidence introduced by SHA.

5

5.21 By contrast, Ms. Townes testified that Malayshaa had lived with her in Seattle

6 until Malayshaa then went to live with Mr. Martin in June. Ms. Townes also testified without

7 contradiction that Malayshaa returned to live with Ms. Townes in August and that Malayshaa

8 had lived with her since that time.

9

5.22 Furthermore, Ms. Pamela Gladney, with Seattle King County Public Health,

10 testified that she had visited Ms. Townes’s home on a number of occasions in 2004 and 2005 and

11 that Malayshaa had been present in Ms. Townes’s home on each occasion.

12

5.23 SHA presented no proof refuting either of these eye witnesses’ testimony.

13

5.24 Nonetheless, by written hearing decision, the hearing officer upheld SHA’s

14 termination of Ms. Townes’s Voucher.

15

5.25 The hearing officer did so because he found that Ms. Townes had not complied

16 with SHA’s policy, custom or practice that required her to present legal documents indicating

17 that a court has awarded her formal custody of her own daughter.

18

5.26 He upheld SHA’s termination without finding that, in fact, Malayshaa had not

19 lived with Ms. Townes during the period in question.

20

5.27 The hearing officer upheld SHA’s termination decision even though Ms. Townes

21 presented uncontroverted, eye witness evidence from two separate sources that Malayshaa had

22 lived with her in 2004 and 2005. Moreover, the hearing officer did not make any finding that

23 either Ms. Townes’s or Ms. Gladney’s testimony was not credible.

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 30 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 31 of 65

1

5.28 The hearing officer upheld SHA’s termination decision even though Ms. Townes

2 presented uncontroverted testimony that she reported to SHA both in writing and by telephone

3 that Malayshaa had moved to Mr. Martin’s home in June 2005.

4

5.29 The hearing officer upheld SHA’s termination decision even though Ms. Townes

5 presented uncontroverted testimony that she reported that Malayshaa had moved back in with

6 Ms. Townes in August 2005.

7

5.30 The hearing officer upheld SHA’s termination even though SHA had informed

8 Ms. Townes that the worst that would happen if she failed to provide proof of legal custody was

9 that her Voucher would be reduced from a three to a two bedroom Voucher.

10

5.31 The hearing officer upheld SHA’s termination decision even though it was clear

11 from the evidence presented at the informal hearing that SHA should have exercised its

12 discretion and not terminated Ms. Townes’s Voucher.

13

5.32 In fact, the hearing officer explicitly found that: “It is clear that the custody of Ms.

14 Townes’s daughter, Malayshaa, was uncertain from the time of her birth. It is also reasonable to

15 assume that the custody issue may have caused some uncertainty regarding Ms. Townes’s

16 household composition.”

17

5.33 The hearing officer upheld SHA’s termination even though it was clear from the

18 evidence presented that SHA had not met its burden of proof or persuasion.

19

5.34 The hearing officer upheld SHA’s termination even though the evidence produced

20 at the hearing provided Ms. Townes with any number of viable defenses, including waiver,

21 estoppel and arbitrary governmental action.

22

5.35 The hearing officer’s decision was arbitrary and capricious and unlawful, and the

23 SHA defendants did nothing to mitigate or overrule it.

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 31 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 32 of 65

1

5.36 The SHA defendants and their hearing officer failed to properly inform Ms.

2 Townes of her right to review of the informal hearing decision and how to access such review

3 when they terminated her from the Section 8 Voucher program.

4

5.37 In fact, the SHA defendants actually affirmatively misled Ms. Townes regarding

5 her rights when they informed her in writing in her grievance hearing notice that: “There is no

6 hearing appeal process available through the Seattle Housing Authority after your hearing has

7 concluded [sic] Please keep in mind that this is your opportunity to present whatever evidence or

8 testimony you may have, so please come prepared.”

9

5.38 In addition, after her informal hearing, Ms. Townes contacted and spoke with an

10 SHA staff person. Ms. Townes asked the SHA official what she could do to appeal the adverse

11 hearing decision. The SHA official told Ms. Townes that no further review was available or

12 possible.

13

5.39 The conduct demonstrated by the hearing officer in Ms. Townes’s case is not an

14 isolated incident.

15

5.40 Until recently, the defendants employed and used Lawrence Weldon as the

16 hearing officer in the vast majority of informal hearings.

17

5.41 SHA did not sufficiently train or supervise Mr. Weldon to ensure that he provided

18 impartial, legally adequate informal hearings and arrived at lawful, supported decisions.

19

5.42 As a result, many other Section 8 Voucher holders have had their Vouchers

20 terminated following such constitutionally inadequate hearings overseen by inadequate and non-

21 impartial hearing officers.

22

23

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 32 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 33 of 65

1

5.43 Like Ms. Townes, other Section 8 Voucher holders have had their Vouchers

2 terminated following hearing decisions in which SHA hearing officers relied solely upon, non-

3 credible, non-probative, uncorroborated hearsay evidence.

4

5.44 Like Ms. Townes, other Section 8 Voucher holders have had their Vouchers

5 terminated following hearing decisions in which SHA hearing officers did not require SHA to

6 present sufficient evidence to prove its allegations by a preponderance of the evidence.

7

5.45 Like Ms. Townes, other Section 8 Voucher holders have had their Vouchers

8 terminated following hearing decisions in which SHA hearing officers refused or failed to

9 consider evidence presented by Voucher holders.

10

5.46 Like Ms. Townes, other Section 8 Voucher holders have not had informal

11 hearings overseen by impartial hearing officers who are sufficiently skilled, trained and

12 knowledgeable to reach supported, lawful decisions.

13

5.47 Like Ms. Townes, other Section 8 Voucher holders and Public Housing tenants

14 have been terminated from the programs because each did not provide SHA with legal

15 documents demonstrating that a court had formally awarded the participant legal custody of a

16 child who the participant had added to her household.

17

5.48 Like Ms. Townes, SHA has barred other Section 8 Voucherholders and Public

18 Housing tenants from adding close family members to their households as a result of SHA’s

19 illegal policies, customs and practices that require proof of legal court awarded custody of

20 children or prohibit related unmarried family members from living together.

21

5.49 Other Voucherholders or Public Housing tenants have been unable to bring

22 children into their own homes because of this SHA policy, custom or practice.

23

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 33 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 34 of 65

1

5.50 Like Ms. Townes, other Section 8 Voucher holders have not been informed of

2 their rights to further review of SHA’s adverse informal hearing decisions to terminate their

3 Section 8 Vouchers.

4

5.51 The SHA defendants either have a policy, pattern, practice or custom of

5 sanctioning these unlawful acts by their hearing officers or have failed to adequately supervise

6 hearing officers in order to ensure that they properly follow the law and provide Voucher holders

7 with informal hearings that comply with constitutional, statutory and regulatory requirements.

8

5.52 Following the termination of her Voucher, Ms. Townes and her three girls were

9 forced to move from their home because Ms. Townes could not afford the rent on her own.

10

5.53 Ms. Townes and her daughters became homeless as a result of SHA’s actions.

11

5.54 The four of them lived in motels or with relatives for a considerable period of

12 time.

13

5.55 Since her Voucher was terminated, Ms. Townes has been forced to pay much

14 more in housing costs than if she had been able to remain on the Voucher program.

15

5.56 They have now found temporary, transitional housing, but have no guarantee of

16 long term affordability, like they did while participating in the Section 8 Voucher program.

17

5.57 Because of the defendants’ illegal conduct, Ms. Townes and her children have

18 suffered severe economic injuries, severe emotional and psychological distress, anguish, anxiety,

19 and injury, and pain and suffering due to the SHA defendants’ willful, wanton, and deliberate

20 misconduct.

21

22

23

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 34 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 35 of 65

1

VI. FACTS REGARDING THE REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFF

MARKELETTA WILSON

2

6.1 The representative plaintiff, Markeletta Wilson, held a Section 8 Voucher with

3

SHA until the SHA defendants terminated her Voucher by hearing decision dated February 26,

4

2007.

5

6.2 Ms. Wilson had been a participant in the Voucher program for a number of years

6

prior to her termination.

7

6.3 Ms. Wilson used the Section 8 Voucher to subsidize her rent on an apartment that

8

she and her son, Dewayne Jackson, shared.

9

6.4 In May 2005, Ms. Wilson filled out a personal declaration form for SHA

10

indicating that she was disabled.

11

6.5 Ms. Wilson suffers from physical disabilities including artery disease and

12

breathing problems.

13

6.6 Ms. Wilson also suffers from depression. She has struggled with this mental

14

illness since she was young and was hospitalized for it in the past.

15

6.7 When Ms. Wilson is depressed, she cries, cannot get out of bed, and struggles to

16

follow through on tasks. Her disabilities cause her significant problems with reading and reading

17

comprehension.

18

6.8 Ms. Wilson has been treated over the years by a number of mental health

19

specialists for her depression.

20

6.9 Because of her disabilities, Mr. Wilson has found it difficult to hold down gainful

21

employment in the past or engage in other activities of daily living.

22

23

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 35 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 36 of 65

1

6.10 Ms. Wilson has received federal and state financial benefits because her

2 disabilities have rendered her unable to work.

3

6.11 Ms. Wilson’s depression deepened when her sister-in-law became ill and then

4 became even more severe following her brother’s death in the Spring of 2005.

5

6.12 During this same time period, because of her landlord’s refusal to complete

6 repairs or pay for landlord-supplied utilities, Ms. Wilson’s living conditions in the apartment she

7 rented with her Section 8 Voucher deteriorated to the point where her health and safety were in

8 serious danger.

9

6.13 In fact, in December 2006, the City of Seattle condemned the property because of

10 these hazardous conditions, forcing Ms. Wilson to move from the apartment.

11

6.14 Ms. Wilson’s horrid living conditions exacerbated her existing mental and

12 physical disabilities.

13

6.15 Ms. Wilson is an individual with a disability or “handicap”; a person living with

14 one or more physical or mental impairments that substantially limit or have limited at least one

15 or more major life activities.

16

6.16 Ms. Wilson has a record of such physical or mental impairments that substantially

17 limit one or more major life activities.

18

6.17 Ms. Wilson is and has been regarded as having such impairments.

19

6.18 Ms. Wilson is a person with a disability in that she has a sensory, mental, or

20 physical impairment that: (a) Is medically cognizable or diagnosable; or (b) exists as a record or

21 history; or (c) is perceived to exist whether or not it exists in fact.

22

23

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 36 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 37 of 65

1

6.19 In December 2006, SHA sent Ms. Wilson a letter informing her that it was

2 seeking to terminate her Section 8 Voucher because SHA believed she had violated program

3 rules by failing to report information in a timely manner.

4

6.20 Ms. Wilson sought an informal hearing.

5

6.21 Prior to her hearing, Ms. Wilson sent a letter to SHA regarding her termination in

6 which she indicated that she was depressed, mentally delayed and physically ill.

7

6.22 SHA held an informal hearing on February 6, 2007 conducted by hearing officer

8 Lawrence Weldon.

9

6.23 During her hearing, Ms. Wilson attempted to present evidence regarding her

10 disabilities and their relationship to the events alleged by SHA.

11

6.24 During her hearing, Ms. Wilson attempted to present evidence regarding other

12 mitigating factors that SHA should consider before terminating her Section 8 Voucher.

13

6.25 At the hearing, SHA submitted Ms. Wilson’s letter regarding her disabilities and

14 the proposed termination to the hearing officer as part of its exhibits.

15

6.26 The hearing officer failed to consider whether Ms. Wilson was entitled to a

16 reasonable accommodation of her disabilities prior to being terminated from the Section 8

17 Voucher program.

18

6.27 Neither the hearing officer nor the SHA defendants took any action to ensure that

19 SHA properly evaluated Ms. Wilson’s situation in order to determine whether she was entitled to

20 a reasonable accommodation.

21

6.28 The hearing officer did not consider whether SHA should have exercised its

22 discretion and not terminated Ms. Wilson’s Voucher in light of her disabilities and the other facts

23 related to her case.

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 37 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 38 of 65

1

6.29 In fact, the SHA defendants actually affirmatively misled Ms. Wilson regarding

2 her rights when they informed her in writing in her grievance hearing notice that: “There is no

3 hearing appeal process available through the Seattle Housing Authority after your hearing has

4 concluded [sic] Please keep in mind that this is your opportunity to present whatever evidence or

5 testimony you may have, so please come prepared.”

6

6.30 Because of the SHA defendants’ illegal conduct, Ms. Wilson has had to pay more

7 in housing costs than she would have had she been able to remain on the Voucher program.

8

6.31 In addition, Ms. Wilson has suffered severe emotional and psychological distress,

9 anguish, anxiety, and injury, and pain and suffering due to the defendants’ willful, wanton, and

10 deliberate misconduct.

11

VII. FACTS REGARDING CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIPS

BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND THE SHA DEFENDANTS

12

7.1 Ms. Wilson and SHA executed a number of documents at the outset of her

13

participation in SHA’s Section 8 Voucher program and periodically thereafter.

14

7.2 Ms. Townes and SHA executed a number of documents at the outset of her

15

participation in SHA’s Section 8 Voucher program and periodically thereafter.

16

7.3 These documents included a Section 8 Voucher, a personal declaration, and other

17

forms.

18

7.4 These forms and documents collectively and individually created contractual

19

rights and responsibilities between Ms. Wilson and the SHA defendants.

20

7.5 These forms and documents collectively and individually created contractual

21

rights and responsibilities between Ms. Townes and the SHA defendants.

22

23

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 38 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 39 of 65

1

7.6 All voucherholders execute similar documents with SHA as they entered the

2 program or thereafter.

3

7.7 These forms and documents collectively and individually created contractual

4 rights and responsibilities between other members of the plaintiff class and the SHA defendants.

5

7.8 Public Housing tenants execute different documents at the outset of their

6 participation in SHA’s Public Housing program and periodically thereafter.

7

7.9 However, these Public Housing program forms and documents also collectively

8 and individually created contractual rights and responsibilities between Public Housing Tenants

9 and the SHA defendants.

10

7.10 As one of their contractual obligations, the SHA defendants promised Ms.

11 Wilson, Ms. Townes and the other members of the Voucherholder class and Disabled

12 Voucherholder subclass that the SHA defendants would not discriminate against them or any of

13 their family members on the basis of handicap.

14

7.11 As one of their contractual obligations, the SHA defendants promised Ms.

15 Wilson, Ms. Townes and the other members of the Voucherholder class and Disabled

16 Voucherholder subclass that the SHA defendants would provide reasonable accommodations to

17 disabled Voucher holders or their family members, if necessary.

18

7.12 As one of their contractual obligations, the SHA defendants promised Ms.

19 Townes and the other members of the Assisted Families class that the SHA defendants would not

20 discriminate against them or any of their family members on the basis of being a family with

21 children or because of their familial status.

22

7.13 As one of their contractual obligations, the SHA defendants promised Ms.

23 Wilson, Ms. Townes and other members of the Voucherholder class, the Disabled

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 39 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 40 of 65

1 Voucherholder subclass and the Assisted Assisted Families class that they would comply with

2 applicable federal regulations, the federal and state constitutions, and other applicable laws

3 before terminating Section 8 Vouchers or Public Housing tenancies.

4

7.14 As one of their contractual obligations, the SHA defendants promised Ms.

5 Wilson, Ms. Townes and the other members of the plaintiff class and subclass that the SHA

6 defendants would provide them with informal hearings that complied with applicable federal

7 regulations, the federal and state constitutions, other applicable laws, other obligations imposed

8 by SHA’s Section 8 Administrative Plan and other SHA written materials before terminating

9 Section 8 Vouchers.

10

7.15 Ms. Wilson, Ms. Townes and the other members of the Voucherholder class, the

11 Disabled Voucherholder subclass and the Assisted Families class participated in the SHA

12 defendants’ Section 8 Voucher and Public Housing programs in consideration for the SHA

13 defendants’ contractual promises.

14

7.16 Ms. Wilson, Ms. Townes and the other members of the Voucherholder class, the

15 Disabled Voucherholder subclass and the Assisted Families class agreed to comply and did

16 comply with SHA’s Section 8 Voucher and Public Housing program rules and requirements in

17 consideration for the SHA defendants’ contractual promises.

18

7.17 The SHA defendants breached their contractual obligations to Ms. Wilson, Ms.

19 Townes and the other members of the Voucherholder class, the Disabled Voucherholder subclass

20 and the Assisted Families class by terminating them without first affording them appropriate

21 reasonable accommodations, by discriminating against them on the basis of handicap, by

22 discriminating against them on the basis of being a family with children or a family interested in

23 adding a close relative, by failing to provide them with informal hearings that met applicable

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 40 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 41 of 65

1 constitutional, statutory and regulatory requirements and by interfering with their rights to

2 subsequent review.

3

7.18 The SHA defendants’ breaches of their contractual obligations caused significant

4 injury to Ms. Wilson, Ms. Townes and to the plaintiff class and subclass.

5

VIII. FACTS REGARDING THE PROPOSED VOUCHERHOLDER CLASS AND

6

DISABLED VOUCHERHOLDER SUBCLASS

7

8.1 Plaintiffs, Markeletta Wilson and Marie Townes, bring this action on behalf of

8 themselves and on behalf of a class of similarly situated people pursuant to Rule 23(a) and

9 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

10

8.2 Ms. Wilson and Ms. Townes seek certification of a class of similarly situated

11 individuals described as:

12

(a) All people whom the SHA defendants have terminated from the Section 8

13 Housing Choice Voucher program since February 22, 2003 and all people whom the SHA

14 defendants will terminate from the program in the future.

15

8.3 Ms. Wilson seeks certification of a subclass of similarly situated individuals

16 described as:

17

(a) All people living with a disability and all people, who live with a household

18 member living with a disability, whom the SHA defendants have terminated from the Section 8

19 Housing Voucher program since February 22, 2003 and all such people whom the SHA

20 defendants will terminate in the future.

21

8.4 All members of the proposed Disabled Voucherholder subclass are also members

22 of the plaintiff class.

23

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 41 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 42 of 65

1

8.5 The proposed class and subclass are so numerous that joinder of all class and

2 subclass members is impracticable.

3

8.6 Though the exact number is presently unknown, plaintiffs believe that the SHA

4 defendants have terminated more than 500 individuals from the Section 8 Voucher program in

5 the last six years.

6

8.7 Though the exact number is presently unknown, the plaintiffs believe that a

7 significant number of these former Section 8 Voucher holders were disabled or lived with a

8 household member who was disabled at the time SHA terminated their Vouchers.

9

8.8 Because of the SHA and HUD defendants’ actions, many class members and their

10 families have been forced to relocate from their former homes and may now be homeless.

11

8.9 The plaintiffs and the proposed class and subclass share common issues of law

12 and fact as detailed herein.

13

8.10 The plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the members of the class and

14 subclass.

15

8.11 The plaintiffs and their attorneys will fairly and adequately protect the interests of

16 the class and subclass.

17

8.12 The SHA and HUD defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally

18 applicable to the class and subclass, making declaratory and injunctive relief appropriate for both

19 the class and subclass.

20

IX. FACTS REGARDING THE PROPOSED ASSISTED FAMILIES CLASS

21

9.1 Plaintiff Marie Townes brings this action on behalf of herself and on behalf of a

22 class of similarly situated people pursuant to Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of

23 Civil Procedure.

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 42 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 43 of 65

1

9.2 Ms. Townes seeks certification of a class of similarly situated individuals

2 described as:

3

(a) All people whom the defendants, Seattle Housing Authority and Thomas Tierney,

4 have required or will require show proof that they have court approved legal custody of any

5 children with whom they live at the time they seek admission to the Voucher or Public Housing

6 programs or at any time after being admitted to either program and all people who have sought

7 or will seek to add a person related by blood or by close familial relation to any household

8 assisted by SHA. .

9

9.3 The members of the proposed Assisted Families class include past, present and

10 future participants in SHA’s Section 8 Voucher and Public Housing programs.

11

9.4 The proposed class is so numerous that joinder of all class members is

12 impracticable.

13

9.5 Though the exact number is presently unknown, plaintiffs believe that the SHA

14 defendants have required many Section 8 Voucherholders and Public Housing tenants to provide

15 them with the documentation described above.

16

9.6 Because of the SHA defendants’ actions, many class members and their families

17 have been forced to relocate from their former homes and may now be homeless, while others

18 have been unable to add children or related adults to their households because of SHA’s

19 unlawful policy, custom or practice.

20

9.7 Marie Townes and the proposed class share common issues of law and fact as

21 detailed herein.

22

9.8 Marie Townes’ claims are typical of the claims of the other members of the class.

23

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 43 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 44 of 65

1

9.9 Marie Townes and her attorneys will fairly and adequately protect the interests of

2 the class.

3

9.10 The SHA defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable

4 to the class and subclass, making declaratory and injunctive relief appropriate for both the class

5 and subclass.

6

X. FACTS DEMONSTRATING NEED

FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

7

10.1 As a result of the defendants’ actions, Ms. Wilson, Ms. Townes and the proposed

8

plaintiff classes and subclass have suffered and, in the absence of the requested declaratory and

9

injunctive relief, will continue to suffer irreparable harm.

10

10.2 The SHA and HUD defendants have failed to change their policies, practices or

11

customs or to remedy past illegal conduct in order to avoid causing continuing injury to the

12

plaintiffs or the plaintiff classes and subclass members.

13

10.3 Ms. Wilson, Ms. Townes and the plaintiff classes and subclass members continue

14

to suffer on-going financial, physical, emotional and social injuries as a result of the SHA and

15

HUD defendants’ violations of the plaintiffs’ rights and those of the plaintiff classes and subclass

16

members.

17

10.4 Ms. Wilson, Ms. Townes and the plaintiff classes and subclass have no plain,

18

speedy, or adequate remedy at law that will protect them from future violations of their rights

19

and on-going injuries.

20

10.5 Ms. Wilson, Ms. Townes and the members of the proposed plaintiff classes and

21

subclass potentially face homelessness or are suffering from homelessness because of the SHA

22

and HUD defendants’ illegal conduct.

23

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 44 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 45 of 65

1

10.6 The plaintiffs and the plaintiff class members would not have paid as much in

2 housing costs as they have since their Vouchers were terminated had the SHA and HUD

3 defendants not engaged in these illegal actions.

4

10.7 The SHA and HUD defendants’ illegal actions have made it more difficult for Ms.

5 Wilson, Ms. Townes and the other members of the plaintiff classes and subclass to find

6 affordable housing and to receive new federal housing assistance through the Section 8 Voucher

7 program or another federal housing program.

8

10.8 The issuance of permanent injunctions as requested below is in the public interest.

9

XI. VOUCHERHOLDER CLASS CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

10

AGAINST SHA DEFENDANTS

11

The representative plaintiffs, Markeletta Wilson and Marie Townes, make the following

12 claims for relief on behalf of themselves and on behalf of the proposed plaintiff class as a whole,

13 against the SHA Defendants based upon the facts alleged above.

14

First Claim For Relief – Violation of Due Process Clause

of United States Constitution

15

11.1 The SHA defendants’ terminations of the plaintiffs’ Section 8 Vouchers and the

16

Section 8 Vouchers of all other class members, under color of state law, without providing them

17

with informal hearings that comported with due process requirements as alleged above, violated

18

rights secured to the plaintiffs and the other plaintiff class members by the Due Process Clause of

19

the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Such violations are actionable

20

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

21

22

23

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 45 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 46 of 65

1

Second Claim For Relief –Violation of Federal Laws

Requiring Certain Pre-Termination Procedural Protections

2

11.2 The SHA defendants’ terminations of the plaintiffs’ Section 8 Vouchers and the

3

Section 8 Vouchers of the other class members, under color of state law, without providing them

4

with informal hearings that comported with due process requirements as alleged above, violated

5

rights secured to the plaintiffs and other members of the plaintiff class by certain federal statutes

6

and regulations, including 42 U.S.C. § 1437f and 24 C.F.R. §§ 982.551-553 & 982.555. Such

7

violations are actionable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

8

9

Third Claim For Relief – Supplemental State Claim –

Violation of Due Process Clause of Washington State Constitution

10

11.3 The SHA defendants’ termination of Ms. Wilson’s and Ms. Townes’s Section 8

11

Vouchers and the Section 8 Vouchers of all other class members, under color of state law,

12

without providing them with informal hearings that comported with due process requirements as

13

alleged above, violated rights secured to the plaintiffs and other members of the plaintiff class by

14

the Due Process Clause of the Washington State Constitution, Art I § 3.

15

16

Fourth Claim For Relief – Supplemental State Claim –

Violations of Washington’s Housing Authorities Law

17

11.4 The SHA defendants’ numerous violations of federal and state constitutional,

18

statutory and regulatory requirements also constitute violations of their obligations to the

19

plaintiffs and plaintiff class under Washington’s Housing Authorities Law, RCW 35.82.010 et

20

seq..

21

22

23

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 46 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 47 of 65

1

Fifth Claim For Relief – Supplemental State Claim –

Breach of Contract

2

11.5 The SHA defendants breached their contractual obligations to the plaintiffs,

3

Wilson and Townes, and to the plaintiff class causing them injury by failing to comply with

4

applicable federal regulations, the federal and state constitutions, other applicable laws, other

5

obligations imposed by SHA’s Section 8 Administrative Plan and other SHA written materials

6

before terminating their Section 8 Vouchers.

7

8

XII. DISABLED VOUCHERHOLDER SUBCLASS CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

AGAINST SHA DEFENDANTS

9

The representative plaintiff, Markeletta Wilson, brings the following claims on her own

10

behalf and on behalf of the proposed plaintiff subclass described above, against the SHA

11

Defendants, based upon the facts alleged above.

12

13

First Claim For Relief – Violation Of Federal Laws

Prohibiting Intentional Discrimination On The Basis Of Handicap

14

12.1 The SHA defendants intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff Ms. Wilson

15

and other subclass members on the basis of disability when the defendants terminated their

16

Section 8 Vouchers for reasons related to the subclass members’ disabilities or those of family

17

members and when it issued policies that on their face discriminate between disabled Voucher

18

holders and non-disabled Voucher holders in violation of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42

19

U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1)-(2), § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, the Americans

20

with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1213, and their implementing regulations.

21

22

23

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 47 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 48 of 65

1

Second Claim For Relief – Violation Of Federal Laws

Prohibiting Actions That Have A Disparate Impact On Handicapped People

2

12.2 The SHA defendants imposed or enforced policies, practices, customs, rules or

3

regulations upon or against Ms. Wilson and other subclass members while terminating their

4

Section 8 Vouchers, which had discriminatory effects or disparate impacts on those handicapped

5

people in violation of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1)-(2), § 504 of the

6

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §

7

1213, and their implementing regulations.

8

Third Claim For Relief – Violation Of Federal Laws Requiring

9

Reasonable Accommodations

10

12.3 The SHA defendants failed and refused to reasonably accommodate Ms. Wilson’s

11 disability and the disabilities of plaintiff subclass members or of their family members and failed

12 and refused to investigate whether such reasonable accommodations were necessary before

13 terminating their Section 8 Vouchers in violation of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. §

14 3604(f)(1)-(2), § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, the Americans with

15 Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1213, and their implementing regulations.

16

Fourth Claim For Relief – Violation Of Federal Laws

17

For Failure To Affirmatively Further Fair Housing

18

12.4 The SHA defendants’ discriminatory actions against Ms. Wilson and other

19 subclass members violated the SHA defendants’ obligations to the plaintiff and plaintiff subclass

20 to affirmatively further fair housing pursuant to the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3608, and the

21 Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1437, and their implementing

22 regulations, 24 C.F.R. §§ 107.20, 903.7(o) & 982.53(b)-(c).

23

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 48 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 49 of 65

1

Fifth Claim For Relief – Supplemental State Claim –

Violation Of Washington’s Laws Against Discrimination

2

Prohibiting Intentional Discrimination On The Basis Of Disability

3

12.5 The SHA defendants intentionally discriminated against Ms. Wilson and other

4 subclass members on the basis of disability when the SHA defendants terminated their Section 8

5 Vouchers for reasons related to the subclass members’ disabilities or those of family members in

6 violation of Washington’s Laws Against Discrimination, RCW 49.60.222(1)(b) & (1)(f). Such

7 violations are actionable pursuant to RCW 49.60.030(2).

8

Sixth Claim For Relief – Supplemental State Claim –

Violation Of Washington’s Laws Against Discrimination Prohibiting

9

Actions That Have A Disparate Impact Upon People With Disabilities

10

12.6 The SHA defendants’ imposed or enforced policies, procedures, practices,

11 customs, rules or regulations upon or against Ms. Wilson and other subclass members while

12 terminating their Section 8 Vouchers, which had discriminatory effects or disparate impacts on

13 such disabled people in violation of Washington’s Laws Against Discrimination, RCW

14 49.60.222(1)(b) & (1)(f). Such violations are actionable pursuant to RCW 49.60.030(2).

15

Seventh Claim For Relief – Supplemental State Claim –

Violation Of Washington’s Laws Against Discrimination

16

For Failing To Reasonably Accommodate Disabilities

17

12.7 The SHA defendants failed and refused to reasonably accommodate Ms. Wilson’s

18 disability and the disabilities of plaintiff subclass members or of their family members before

19 terminating their Section 8 Vouchers and failed and refused to properly determine whether

20 reasonable accommodations were necessary before terminating their Section 8 Vouchers in

21 violation of Washington’s Laws Against Discrimination, RCW 49.60.222(2)(b). Such violations

22 are actionable pursuant to RCW 49.60.030(2).

23

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 49 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 50 of 65

1

Eighth Claim For Relief – Supplemental State Claim –

Violations Of Washington’s Housing Authorities Law

2

12.8 The SHA defendants’ numerous violations of federal constitutional, statutory and

3

regulatory requirements also constitute violations of their obligations to the plaintiff and plaintiff

4

subclass under Washington’s Housing Authorities Law, RCW 35.82.010 et seq..

5

Ninth Claim For Relief – Supplemental State Claim –

6

Breach of Contract

7

12.9 The SHA defendants breached their contractual obligations to Ms. Wilson and to

8 other subclass members, causing them injury by intentionally discriminating against them on the

9 basis of handicap, by enforcing policies, practices, customs, rules, or regulations that had a

10 disparate impact upon them and by failing to reasonably accommodate their handicaps or

11 disabilities.

12

XIII. VOUCHERHOLDER CLASS CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

13

AGAINST HUD DEFENDANTS

14

The representative plaintiffs, Markeletta Wilson and Marie Townes, make the following

15 claims for relief on behalf of themselves and on behalf of the proposed plaintiff class as a whole,

16 against the HUD defendants based upon the facts alleged above.

17

First Claim for Relief – Violation of Federal Administrative Procedures Act

18

13.1 HUD has violated its legal obligations to the plaintiffs and the plaintiff class by

19 promulgating unconstitutional regulations that authorize or require SHA to engage in the illegal

20 activities as set forth above. HUD is therefore subject to suit and liable to the plaintiffs and the

21 plaintiff class pursuant to the Federal Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 702.

22

23

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 50 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 51 of 65

1

Second Claim For Relief –Violation of Federal Laws

Requiring Certain Pre-Termination Procedural Protections

2

13.2 HUD has violated its legal obligations to the plaintiffs and the plaintiff class by

3

promulgating unconstitutional regulations that authorize or require SHA to engage in the illegal

4

activities as set forth above and by approving SHA’s unconstitutional and illegal, explicit,

5

written informal hearing policies. HUD is therefore subject to suit and liable to the plaintiffs and

6

the plaintiff class pursuant to the United States Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1437f.

7

Third Claim For Relief –Violation of Due Process Clause

8

of United States Constitution

9

13.3 HUD violated its legal obligations by failing to provide the plaintiffs and the

10 plaintiff class with Due Process of law pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the United States

11 Constitution before the plaintiffs’ Voucher was terminated as set forth above.

12

XIV. DISABLED VOUCHERHOLDER SUBCLASS CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

AGAINST HUD DEFENDANTS

13

The representative plaintiff, Markeletta Wilson, brings the following claims on her own

14

behalf and on behalf of the proposed plaintiff subclass described above, against the HUD

15

Defendants, based upon the facts alleged above.

16

First Claim For Relief – Violation Of Federal Laws

17

Prohibiting Intentional Discrimination On The Basis Of Handicap

18

14.1 The HUD defendants’ actions in promulgating regulations that authorize or

19 require SHA to engage in the illegal activities as set forth above constitutes intentional

20 discrimination against the plaintiff, Ms. Wilson, and other subclass members on the basis of

21 disability or those of family members in violation of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. §

22 3604(f)(1)-(2), § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, the Americans with

23 Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1213.

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 51 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 52 of 65

1

Second Claim For Relief – Violation Of Federal Laws

2

Prohibiting Actions That Have A Disparate Impact On Handicapped People

3

14.2 The HUD defendants’ actions in promulgating unconstitutional regulations that

4 authorize or require SHA to engage in the illegal activities as set forth above had discriminatory

5 effects or disparate impacts on Ms. Wilson and other subclass members who are handicapped

6 people, in violation of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1)-(2); § 504 of the

7 Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.

8 § 1213.

9

XV. ASSISTED FAMILIES CLASS CLAIMS AGAINST SHA DEFENDANTS

10

The representative plaintiff, Marie Townes, brings the following claims on her own

11

behalf and on behalf of the proposed Assisted Families plaintiff class described above, against

12

the SHA Defendants, based upon the facts alleged above.

13

First Claim For Relief –Violation of Constitutional Rights

14

to Privacy and Freedom of Association.

15

15.1 The SHA defendants violated Ms. Townes’ and other class members’ rights to

16 privacy and freedom of association when the SHA defendants threatened to terminate or

17 terminated their Section 8 Vouchers, threatened to evict or evicted them from public housing,

18 denied their applications for admission to either program, or refused to add a child to any

19 household, because the household failed to provide proof that that an adult in the household had

20 court approved legal custody of any child with whom they lived or with whom they wished to

21 live. The SHA defendants also violated Ms. Townes’ and the other class members’ rights to

22 privacy and freedom of association when they issued and followed policies, customs or practices

23 that on their face discriminate between people on the basis of their familial status. The SHA

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 52 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 53 of 65

1 defendants’ actions occurred under color of state law and violated rights to privacy and free

2 association guaranteed to Ms. Townes and other class members by the First, Fifth and Fourteenth

3 Amendments to the United States Constitution. Such violations are actionable pursuant to 42

4 U.S.C. § 1983.

5

Second Claim For Relief –Violation of Constitutional Rights

to Privacy and Freedom of Association.

6

15.2 The SHA defendants violated class members’ rights to privacy and freedom of

7

association when the SHA defendants threatened to terminate or terminated their Section 8

8

Vouchers, threatened to evict or evicted them from public housing, denied their applications for

9

admission to either program, or refused to allow an assisted household to add any close relative,

10

because of SHA’s policies, practices or customs of barring unmarried, related adults from living

11

together. The SHA defendants also violated class members’ rights to privacy and freedom of

12

association when they issued and followed policies, customs or practices that on their face

13

discriminate between people on the basis of their familial status. The SHA defendants’ actions

14

occurred under color of state law and violated rights to privacy and free association guaranteed

15

class members by the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

16

Such violations are actionable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

17

Third Claim For Relief – Violation Of Federal Laws

18

Prohibiting Intentional Discrimination

Against Families With Children

19

15.3 The SHA defendants’ actions described in paragraph 15.1 above also constitute

20

illegal discrimination against Ms. Townes and other Assisted Families class members on the

21

basis of their familial status in violation of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a)-

22

(f), and their implementing regulations.

23

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 53 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 54 of 65

1

Fourth Claim For Relief – Violation Of Federal Laws

2

Prohibiting Actions That Have A Disparate Impact On Families With Children

3

15.4 The SHA defendants imposed or enforced policies, practices, customs, rules or

4 regulations upon or against Ms. Townes and other Assisted Families class members, which had

5 discriminatory effects or disparate impacts on families with children in violation of the Fair

6 Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a)-(f) and their implementing regulations.

7

Fifth Claim For Relief –Violation Of Federal Laws

8

For Failure To Affirmatively Further Fair Housing

9

15.5 The SHA defendants’ discriminatory actions against Ms. Townes and other

10 Assisted Families class members violated the SHA defendants’ obligations to the plaintiff and

11 plaintiff class to affirmatively further fair housing pursuant to the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §

12 3608, and the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1437, and their

13 implementing regulations, 24 C.F.R. §§ 107.20, 903.7(o) & 982.53(b)-(c).

14

Sixth Claim For Relief – Supplemental State Claim –

Violation of Art. I § 7 of Washington State Constitution

15

15.6 The SHA defendants’actions described above and in paragraph 15.1 and 15.2

16

above, also constitute violations of rights secured Ms. Townes and other Assisted Families by

17

Art. I, § 7 of the Washington State Constitution.

18

Seventh Claim For Relief – Supplemental State Claim –

19

Violation Of Washington’s Laws Against Discrimination

Prohibiting Intentional Discrimination Against Families With Children

20

15.6 The SHA defendants’actions described in paragraph 15.1 and 15.2 above, also

21

constitute illegal discrimination against Ms. Townes and other Assisted Families class members

22

because they were members of a family with children or sought to live with close relativesin

23

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 54 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 55 of 65

1 violation of Washington’s Laws Against Discrimination, RCW 49.60.222(1)(a), (b), (f), (g), (k).

2 Such violations are actionable pursuant to RCW 49.60.030(2).

3

Eighth Claim For Relief – Supplemental State Claim –

Violation Of Washington’s Laws Against Discrimination Prohibiting

4

Actions That Have A Disparate Impact Upon Families With Children

5

15.7 The SHA defendants’ imposed or enforced policies, procedures, practices,

6 customs, rules or regulations upon or against Ms. Townes and other class members, which had

7 discriminatory effects or disparate impacts on families in violation of Washington’s Laws

8 Against Discrimination, RCW 49.60.222(1)(a), (b), (f), (g), (k). Such violations are actionable

9 pursuant to RCW 49.60.030(2).

10

Ninth Claim For Relief – Supplemental State Claim –

Violations Of Washington’s Housing Authorities Law

11

15.8 The SHA defendants’ numerous violations of federal constitutional, statutory and

12

regulatory requirements also constitute violations of their obligations to the plaintiff and plaintiff

13

class under Washington’s Housing Authorities Law, RCW 35.82.010 et seq.

14

Tenth Claim For Relief – Supplemental State Claim –

15

Breach of Contract

16

15.9 The SHA defendants breached their contractual obligations to Ms. Townes and to

17 other class members, causing them injury by intentionally discriminating against them as a

18 member of a family with children or because of famial status, by enforcing policies, practices,

19 customs, rules, or regulations that had a disparate impact upon them.

20

21

22

23

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 55 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 56 of 65

1

XVI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

2

The plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all members of the Voucherholder

3 Class, the Assisted Families Class and the Disabled Voucherholder Subclass pray that the Court

4 grant the following relief:

5

16.1 Certification of the Voucherholder class and Disabled Voucherholder subclass and

6 the Assisted Families class as proposed above pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2);

7

16.2 A declaratory judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, declaring that the SHA

8 defendants have violated rights secured to plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff class by the

9 Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Article I § 3

10 of Washington’s Constitution, and applicable federal and state statutes and federal regulations in

11 that they have not provided plaintiffs and the plaintiff class with adequate, pre-termination

12 informal hearings. The SHA defendants’ hearings are insufficient for the following reasons:

13

(a) The defendants have provided Voucher holders with misleading notices that state

14 or imply that Voucher holders have no further recourse to contest SHA’s termination decisions

15 beyond the informal hearing process;

16

(b) the defendants have provided Voucher holders with termination notices which do

17 not clearly spell out the reasons why SHA believes termination is appropriate;

18

(c) the defendants have not properly vetted, trained or supervised all of their hearing

19 officers in order to ensure that all of their hearing officers have the skills, knowledge and training

20 necessary to properly adjudicate informal hearings and reach appropriate, reasoned and lawful

21 decisions;

22

(d) the defendants have employed and used hearing officers who are not impartial;

23

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 56 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 57 of 65

1

(e) the defendants and their hearing officers have had a policy, practice or custom of

2 prohibiting Voucher holders from raising relevant legal arguments or affirmative defenses in

3 informal hearings;

4

(f) the defendants and their hearing officers have had a policy, practice or custom of

5 refusing to overturn the defendants’ termination decisions based upon arguments that:

6

(1) The Voucher termination would violate the participant’s (or a member of

7

the participant family’s) rights under any law forbidding discrimination on the basis of

8

membership in a protected class;

9

(2) the defendants should not terminate a Voucher because of the existence of

10

a reasonable accommodation to a person’s disability that the defendants have not

11

provided;

12

(3) the termination is barred by an equitable doctrine such as waiver, estoppel,

13

or laches;

14

(4) the termination would be inappropriate in light of mitigating factors such

15

as those contemplated by 24 C.F.R. § 982.552(c)(2);

16

(5) the decision to terminate a Voucher was an abuse of SHA’s discretion

17

considering other similar circumstances; or

18

(6) the termination of assistance would violate the federal or Washington

19

constitutions, a statute or ordinance, or other code, or conflict with the common law of

20

the community;

21

(g) the defendants and their hearing officers have relied solely upon non-credible,

22 non-probative, uncorroborated hearsay testimony or evidence when terminating participants’

23 vouchers;

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 57 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 58 of 65

1

(h) the defendants and their hearing officers have not required SHA to present

2 sufficient evidence to prove its allegations by a preponderance of the evidence;

3

(i) the defendants and their hearing officers failed or refused to consider evidence

4 presented by Voucher holders;

5

(j) the defendants and their hearing officers have terminated or authorized the

6 termination of Section 8 Vouchers for reasons not clearly set forth in the defendants’ termination

7 letters;

8

(k) the defendants and their hearing officers have mislead Voucher holders regarding

9 their rights to seek review of adverse informal hearing decisions;

10

(l) the defendants and their hearing officers failed to provide Voucher holders who

11 lose informal hearings with adequate written notice of their right to seek subsequent review of

12 those decisions and the process and timelines associated with accessing such review; and

13

(m) the defendants interfered with the rights of Voucher holders to seek judicial

14 review of adverse informal hearing decisions.

15

16.3 a declaratory judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, declaring that the

16 defendants’ failures to provide notice to the plaintiffs and other members of the plaintiff class as

17 part of the informal hearing process of their right to further review of SHA’s termination

18 decisions, the process to seek such review and the associated timeline for seeking such review,

19 violated rights secured to the plaintiffs and to other members of the plaintiff class by the Due

20 Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Article I § 3 of

21 Washington’s Constitution, and applicable federal statutes and regulations;

22

16.4 a declaratory judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, declaring that the SHA

23 defendants intentionally discriminated against Ms. Wilson and other plaintiff subclass members

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 58 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 59 of 65

1 on the basis of disability by terminating their Vouchers for reasons related to their disabilities in

2 violation of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1)-(2) & (3)(b), § 504 of the

3 Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12182,

4 and Washington’s Laws Against Discrimination, RCW 49.60.222(1)(b) & (1)(f);

5

16.5 a declaratory judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, declaring that the SHA

6 defendants have enforced rules, regulations or policies against Ms. Wilson and plaintiff subclass

7 members that have discriminatory effects or disparate impacts against these disabled people in

8 violation of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1)-(2) & (3)(b), § 504 of the

9 Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12182,

10 and Washington’s Laws Against Discrimination, RCW 49.60.222(1)(b) & (1)(f);

11

16.6 a declaratory judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, declaring that the SHA

12 defendants’ prohibitions against raising reasonable accommodation defenses at informal hearings

13 and refusal to take any steps to determine whether such accommodations were necessary violated

14 rights secured to the plaintiff, Markeletta Wilson, and to other members of the plaintiff subclass

15 under the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1)-(2) & (3)(b), § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act,

16 29 U.S.C. § 794, the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12182, and Washington’s

17 Laws Against Discrimination, RCW 49.60.222(2)(b);

18

16.7 a declaratory judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, declaring that by

19 discriminating against Ms. Wilson and the other subclass members on the basis of disability, the

20 SHA defendants have violated their obligations to affirmatively further fair housing required by

21 the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3608, and the Quality Housing And Work Responsibility Act,

22 42 U.S.C. § 1437, and their implementing regulations;

23

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 59 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 60 of 65

1

16.8 a declaratory judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, declaring that the SHA

2 defendants have breached contractual obligations that they have to the plaintiffs and plaintiff

3 class members and that such breaches have caused the plaintiffs and plaintiff class members

4 significant harm;

5

16.9 a declaratory judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, declaring that the HUD

6 defendants by promulgating unconstitutional regulations that authorize or require SHA to engage

7 in the illegal activities as set forth above, have violated rights provided the plaintiffs and the

8 plaintiff class under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the United States

9 Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1437f;

10

16.10 if the Court should determine that SHA has complied with applicable HUD

11 regulations, then the plaintiffs and plaintiff class seek a declaratory judgment, pursuant to 28

12 U.S.C. § 2201, declaring that the particular HUD regulations are unconstitutional and illegal in

13 that they violate rights assured the plaintiffs and plaintiff class members under the Fifth

14 Amendment of the United States Constitution and the United States Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §

15 1437f and that those particular regulations are therefore unenforceable against the plaintiffs or

16 against any of the plaintiff class members;

17

16.11 a declaratory judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, declaring that the HUD

18 defendants’ actions in promulgating unconstitutional regulations that authorize or require SHA to

19 engage in the illegal activities as set forth above, had discriminatory effects or disparate impacts

20 on Ms. Wilson and other subclass members who are handicapped people in violation of the Fair

21 Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1)-(2); § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29

22 U.S.C. § 794, the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1213;

23

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 60 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 61 of 65

1

16.12 a declaratory judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, declaring that the HUD

2 defendants’ actions in promulgating unconstitutional regulations that authorize or require SHA to

3 engage in the illegal activities as set forth above, violated the defendants’ obligations to Ms.

4 Wilson and other subclass members who are handicapped to affirmatively further fair housing

5 pursuant to the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3608, and the Quality Housing and Work

6 Responsibility Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1437;

7

16.13 a declaratory judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, declaring that the SHA

8 defendants intentionally discriminated against Ms. Townes and other Assisted Families class

9 members because they were members of a family with children and violated their rights to

10 privacy and freedom of association, when the defendants terminated their Section 8 Vouchers,

11 moved to evict them from public housing or refused to admit them to any SHA assisted housing

12 program for failing to provide proof that they have court approved legal custody of any children

13 whom they sought or will seek to add to their households; when the SHA defendants demanded

14 that they provide proof that they have court approved legal custody of any children whom they

15 sought to add to their households; and when the SHA defendants issued and followed policies,

16 customs or practices that on their face discriminate between people who live in households with

17 children and people who live in households without children in violation of the First, Fifth and

18 Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42

19 U.S.C. § 3604(a) – (f), and their implementing regulations, the Washington Constitution and

20 Washington’s Laws Against Discrimination, RCW 49.60.222(1)(a), (b), (f), (g), (k), and RCW

21 49.60.030(2).

22

16.14 a declaratory judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, declaring that the SHA

23 defendants have enforced rules, regulations or policies against Ms. Townes and Assisted

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 61 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 62 of 65

1 Families class members that have discriminatory effects or disparate impacts against families

2 with children in violation of the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

3 Constitution, the Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a)-(f), and its implementing

4 regulations, the Washington Consitution and Washington’s Laws Against Discrimination, RCW

5 49.60.222(1)(a), (b), (f), (g) & (k) and RCW 49.60.030(2).

6

16.15 a declaratory judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, declaring that by

7 discriminating against Ms. Townes and the other Assisted Families class members, the SHA

8 defendants have violated their obligations to affirmatively further fair housing required by the

9 Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3608, and the Quality Housing And Work Responsibility Act, 42

10 U.S.C. § 1437, and their implementing regulations;

11

16.16 a declaratory judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, declaring that the SHA

12 defendants have breached contractual obligations that they have to Ms. Townes and Assisted

13 Families class members and that such breaches have caused the plaintiff and plaintiff class

14 members significant harm;

15

16.17 a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting the SHA defendants from

16 terminating any additional Section 8 Vouchers until they provide informal hearings that meet all

17 applicable constitutional, statutory and regulatory requirements and a preliminary and permanent

18 injunction requiring the SHA defendants to properly notify Voucher holders of their rights to

19 seek subsequent review and of the process to seek such review following adverse informal

20 hearing decisions in the future;

21

16.18 a permanent injunction requiring the SHA defendants to provide new informal

22 hearings that meet all applicable constitutional, statutory and regulatory requirements to all

23

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 62 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 63 of 65

1 individuals whom the SHA defendants have terminated from the Section 8 Voucher program

2 within the last six years;

3

16.19 a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting the SHA defendants from

4 requiring any present or future voucherholder or public housing tenant to provide proof of court

5 approved, legal custody of a child as a condition of admitting that household to the Voucher or

6 Public Housing programs or of allowing any child to live in a voucherholder or public housing

7 tenant’s household;

8

16.20 a preliminary and permanent injunction barring the SHA defendants from

9 prohibiting related adults from living together;

10

16.21 a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring the SHA defendants to reinstate

11 each voucherholder and readmit each tenant whom SHA terminated from the Section 8 Voucher

12 program or evicted from the Public Housing program for failing to provide proof of court

13 approved, legal custody of a child prior to allowing the child to live with the voucherholder or

14 tenant;

15

16.22 a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring the SHA defendants to reinstate

16 each voucherholder and readmit each tenant whom SHA terminated from the Section 8 Voucher

17 program or evicted from the Public Housing program because the assisted individual allowed a

18 related adult to live in their homes in violation of SHA’s policy barring related adults from being

19 added to any assisted household;

20

16.23 a permanent injunction requiring the SHA defendants to adequately remedy the

21 harms its illegal policies, practices or customs have caused assisted families by prohibiting them

22 from adding children or other close family members to their households;

23

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 63 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 64 of 65

1

16.24 an award of damages to the plaintiff Marie Townes and to the plaintiff Markeletta

2 Wilson against the SHA defendants, for Ms. Townes’s and Ms. Wilson’s actual damages for

3 their economic injuries, their emotional and psychological distress, severe mental anguish,

4 anxiety, humiliation, degradation, and pain and suffering of body and mind, in an amount to be

5 proven at trial, and appropriate punitive damages for the willful and wanton misconduct of SHA

6 defendants, together with such other amount of special compensatory damages as may be shown

7 to exist;

8

16.25 an award of the plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in litigating this

9 matter and all of their costs of suit against the SHA Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988,

10 RCW 49.60.030(2) and any other applicable statute, contract or rule of court; and

11

16.26 an award of the plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in litigating this

12 matter and all of their costs of suit against the HUD Defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412

13 and any other applicable statute, contract or rule of court.

14 15 Respectfully submitted this 5th day of January, 2011.

16

COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES

17

18

s/Nicholas B. Straley

.

MERF EHMAN, WSBA No. 29231

19

NICHOLAS B. STRALEY, WSBA No. 25963

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

20

Columbia Legal Services

101 Yesler Way, Suite 300

21

Seattle, WA 98104

(206) 464-5933 – phone

22

(206) 382-3386 – fax

merf.ehman@columbialegal.org

23

nick.straley@columbialegal.org

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 64 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 111 Filed 01/05/11 Page 65 of 65

1

Certificate of Service

2

I hereby certify that on January 5, 2011, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk

3 of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the

4 following:

5 Scott Barbara Johnson Andrews & Skinner, P.S.
6 Attorney for Defendants
7 Adam D. Kirschner
8 United States Department of Justice Attorney for HUD Defendants
9

James Fearn Office of the General Counsel Seattle Housing Authority Attorney for Defendants

10

11

s/Nicholas B. Straley

.

MERF EHMAN, WSBA No. 29231

12

NICHOLAS B. STRALEY, WSBA No. 25963

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

13

Columbia Legal Services

101 Yesler Way, Suite 300

14

Seattle, WA 98104

(206) 464-5933 – phone

15

(206) 382-3386 – fax

merf.ehman@columbialegal.org

16

nick.straley@columbialegal.org

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT… - 65 No. 09-CV-00226-MJP

Columbia Legal Services 101 Yesler Way, #300 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 464-5933 Fax: (206) 328-3386

 
 Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 211 Filed 09/08/11 Page 1 of 23

1

THE HONORABLE MARSHA J. PECHMAN

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

15

AT SEATTLE

16

17
18 MARKELETTA WILSON, MARIE 19 TOWNES and all other similarly situated 20 individuals

21

22

Plaintiffs,

Case No. C09-00226 MJP
JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

23

24

v.

NOTE FOR MOTION CALENDAR:

25

September 8, 2011

26 SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY, et al.,

27

28

Defendants.

29

30

31

32 33

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), Plaintiffs1 Markeletta Wilson and

34
35 Marie Townes and Defendants Seattle Housing Authority and Thomas Tierney, Executive

36
37 Director of SHA in his official capacity, request an Order from the Court: (1) granting

38
39 preliminary approval of the proposed settlement; (2) provisionally certifying the Settlement

40
41 Class and appointing Class Representatives and Class Counsel; (3) approving the proposed

42
43 notice of the settlement and authorizing its dissemination to the Settlement Class; and (4) setting

44
45 dates and procedures for the Fairness Hearing, including deadlines for the Class Members to file

46

47

48

49

50

51

1 All capitalized terms in this motion have the meanings set out in the attached Settlement Agreement.

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL (No. C09-00226-MJP) – 1

77771-0001/LEGAL21691128.1

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 211 Filed 09/08/11 Page 2 of 23

1 2

objections to the proposed settlement. The Settlement Agreement and its exhibits are attached

3 4

hereto as Exhibit 1.

5

6

I. INTRODUCTION

7

8

Plaintiffs brought this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

9
10 alleging that Defendants’ practices and procedures violated numerous federal and state statutes

11 12

as well as the United States and Washington Constitutions. The Parties have engaged in

13 14

extensive discovery and motions practice. Currently pending before the Court are cross-motions

15 16

for summary judgment, a motion to certify the class, and a motion for leave to amend the

17 18

complaint. Given the risk and cost of continuing the litigation, the Parties engaged in settlement

19 20

discussions with the Honorable Terrence Carroll (ret.) and, after two days of arms-length

21 22

negotiation, agreed to a settlement. The Parties have worked diligently to draft the Settlement

23 24

Agreement and its exhibits and to develop the content and plan for notice to the Settlement

25
26 Class.

27

28

II. BACKGROUND

29
30 A. The Complaint

31 32

The Seattle Housing Authority (“SHA”) administers the Section 8 Voucher Program in

33 34

Seattle, a federal program for extremely low-income residents. Individuals with vouchers find

35 36

their own housing and pay a percentage of their income for rent. Section 8 pays the rest of the

37 38

rent to the landlord. SHA has policies and procedures that relate to termination of an

39 40

individual’s Section 8 voucher. If a voucher holder is accused of noncompliance with the

41 42

participant obligations or violation of SHA’s rules, the voucher holder is provided with a written

43 44

termination notice and has an opportunity to request an informal hearing in accordance with 24

45 46

C.F.R. § 982.555 (“termination hearing”). If the voucher holder is not successful at the hearing,

47
48 the voucher is terminated. The Fourth Amended Complaint alleges that SHA’s Section 8

49
50 voucher termination process prior to August 1, 2008 did not meet constitutional standards; SHA

51

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL (No. C09-00226-MJP) – 2

77771-0001/LEGAL21691128.1

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 211 Filed 09/08/11 Page 3 of 23

1 2

discriminated against disabled voucher holders by failing to provide them with reasonable

3 4

accommodations; and SHA discriminated against voucher holders by not permitting them to live

5
6 with closely related family members.

7

8

1. Due Process Claims

9

10

Plaintiffs allege that SHA consistently denied due process safeguards during voucher

11 12

termination hearings. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that SHA denied voucher holders their due

13 14

process rights to have legal arguments and factual evidence considered during termination

15 16

hearings and to confront and cross-examine witnesses. Moreover, Plaintiffs contend that these

17 18

due process violations occurred during a time when SHA hearings were conducted by an

19 20

untrained, inexperienced hearing officer. Additionally, Plaintiffs allege that SHA misled

21 22

terminated voucher holders regarding their rights to seek and receive review of SHA’s

23 24

termination decisions. See, e.g., Fourth Am. Compl. ¶ 4.42.

25

26

2. Disability Claims

27

28

Plaintiffs also contend that SHA’s voucher termination policies and practices violated

29
30 SHA’s obligation to provide reasonable accommodations under the federal Fair Housing Act and

31 32

the Washington Law Against Discrimination. Plaintiffs allege that even when notified of the

33 34

presence of a disability and the need for an accommodation, SHA regularly failed to take any

35 36

steps to provide such accommodation or engage in an interactive process with the voucher holder

37 38

to determine whether an accommodation was required, as mandated by federal and state anti-

39 40

discrimination laws. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 4.42, 4.49-4.64.

41

42

3. Familial Status Claims

43 44

Plaintiffs claim that two of SHA’s policies unlawfully infringe upon voucher holders’

45 46

rights. First, Plaintiffs allege the policy for adding minors to a voucher uses family status as a

47
48 basis to deny housing, in violation of federal and state anti-discrimination laws. Second,

49
50 Plaintiffs contend that the minor policy and SHA’s no-added-adults policy violate the federal and

51

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL (No. C09-00226-MJP) – 3

77771-0001/LEGAL21691128.1

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 211 Filed 09/08/11 Page 4 of 23

1 2

state constitutions by interfering with the fundamental right to live with close relatives. See, e.g.,

3 4

id. ¶¶ 4.68-4.111.

5

6

Notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ belief in the strength of their claims, Plaintiffs recognize the

7
8 uncertainty, risk, expense, and burden of litigation and pursuing this action and have agreed to

9
10 the terms of the Settlement Agreement as set forth in Exhibit 1.

11
12 B. SHA’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Claims

13 14

Defendants have denied and continue to deny any liability for any claim by any plaintiff

15 16

or by any putative class which was asserted. Defendants deny that SHA’s policies and practices

17 18

violate federal or state constitutions or federal or state laws, and deny that SHA breached any

19 20

contractual obligation to the Plaintiffs or putative class members. Specifically, Defendants deny

21 22

that SHA’s voucher termination hearings have, at any time, denied voucher holders their due

23 24

process rights. Defendants deny that SHA’s policies and practices regarding reasonable

25
26 accommodations violated the federal Fair Housing Act or the Washington Law Against

27
28 Discrimination. SHA’s policies and practices provided for consideration of all requests for

29
30 reasonable accommodations by any voucher holder and complied with state and federal law.

31 32

Defendants deny that SHA’s policy on adding minor children to existing Section 8 vouchers, or

33 34

its policy on adding adults to Section 8 vouchers, violates state or federal anti-discrimination law

35 36

or federal or state constitutions.

37 38

Notwithstanding Defendants’ denial of any liability or wrongdoing, Defendants recognize

39 40

the uncertainty, risk, expense, and burden of litigation and defending this action and have agreed

41 42

to the terms of the Settlement Agreement as set forth in Exhibit 1.

43
44 C. Plaintiffs’ Investigation of the Case

45 46

Plaintiffs conducted extensive discovery both before filing and during the pendency of

47
48 this case. Prior to filing suit, Class Counsel filed a public disclosure request with SHA seeking

49
50 copies of all Section 8 termination hearing decisions from 2003 to the present. Declaration of

51

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL (No. C09-00226-MJP) – 4

77771-0001/LEGAL21691128.1

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 211 Filed 09/08/11 Page 5 of 23

1 2

Merf Ehman (“Ehman Decl.”) ¶ 7; Declaration of Nicholas Straley (“Straley Decl.”) ¶ 8. SHA

3 4

provided Class Counsel with copies of 500 redacted hearing decisions. Ehman Decl. ¶ 7; Straley

5
6 Decl. ¶ 8. Class Counsel then reviewed each hearing decision and interviewed several former

7
8 Section 8 participants. Ehman Decl. ¶ 7; Straley Decl. ¶ 8. After filing suit, Plaintiffs sought

9
10 initial discovery from HUD and SHA regarding HUD’s approval of SHA’s Administrative Plan.

11 12

Class Counsel received and reviewed approximately 23,000 pages of discovery. Ehman Decl.

13 14

¶¶ 10-11; Straley Decl. ¶¶ 11-12. Plaintiffs then requested additional discovery from SHA

15 16

regarding the issues set forth in the complaint. Ehman Decl. ¶¶ 12-13; Straley Decl. ¶¶ 13-14.

17 18

Class Counsel spent six weeks reviewing hundreds of Section 8 participant files at SHA

19 20

headquarters and at SHA’s warehouse. Ehman Decl. ¶ 12; Straley Decl. ¶ 13. Following this

21 22

document review, Class Counsel conducted four depositions of SHA staff and one deposition of

23 24

a HUD official. Ehman Decl. ¶ 15; Straley Decl. ¶ 16. Class Counsel also reviewed Plaintiffs’

25
26 documents and records, including Ms. Wilson’s voluminous medical records. Ehman Decl.

27
28 ¶¶ 13-14; Straley Decl. ¶¶ 14-15.

29
30 D. Mediation and Settlement

31 32

After the Parties thoroughly briefed the legal and factual issues in cross-motions for

33 34

summary judgment, the Parties discussed possible settlement, agreed to a mediation and worked

35 36

together to find a mutually agreeable time and mediator. Ehman Decl. ¶ 17.

37 38

On June 22, 2011, the Parties met for a formal mediation session with the Honorable

39 40

Terrence Carroll, a retired state court judge who has extensive experience as a mediator,

41 42

including in complex cases. Ehman Decl. ¶ 18; Straley Decl. ¶ 18. The Parties submitted

43 44

mediation statements to the mediator prior to the mediation. Id. The Parties and their counsel

45 46

worked diligently through a fourteen-hour day of mediation with Judge Carroll, which was also

47
48 attended by the Class Representatives. Id. The next day, counsel for both Parties met again for

49
50 nearly the entire working day, with Judge Carroll joining them in the afternoon. Ehman Decl.

51

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL (No. C09-00226-MJP) – 5

77771-0001/LEGAL21691128.1

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 211 Filed 09/08/11 Page 6 of 23

1 2

¶ 19; Straley Decl. ¶ 19. These mediation sessions resulted in a written Memorandum of

3 4

Understanding, which the Parties subsequently worked to memorialize into a complete

5
6 Settlement Agreement. Id.

7

8

III. THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

9

10

As the result of the extensive arms-length negotiation described above, the Parties have

11 12

agreed to settle the litigation on the terms set out in the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement

13 14

Agreement includes key changes SHA will make to its policies and procedures as well as

15 16

clarifications it will make in its written documentation regarding changes it has already made;

17 18

the provision of new voucher termination hearings for all Class Members upon request; and

19 20

monetary terms including attorneys’ fees and costs and damages to Ms. Wilson.

21
22 A. The Settlement Class

23 24

The Settlement Class is defined as all SHA Section 8 voucher holders who had

25
26 termination hearings on or after February 20, 2006 and before August 1, 2008 and whose Section

27
28 8 vouchers were terminated as a result of such hearings. The Settlement Class consists of 82

29
30 members; the identities of Class Members are known and are listed on Exhibit E to the

31 32

Settlement Agreement.

33
34 B. Settlement Benefits

35 36

The settlement confers five significant benefits on the Settlement Class and the public.

37 38

First, SHA agrees to make certain clarifications of and supplements to its Administrative

39 40

Plan and Procedures Manual policies and procedures regarding individuals with disabilities and

41 42

those alleging that they have disabilities. Settlement Agreement ¶ 3.1.

43 44

Second, SHA agrees to amend its Administrative Plan to list documentation it will

45 46

accept, in addition to court orders of custody, as proof that a subsidized household is the primary

47
48 residence of a minor. Id. ¶ 3.2.

49

50

51

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL (No. C09-00226-MJP) – 6

77771-0001/LEGAL21691128.1

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 211 Filed 09/08/11 Page 7 of 23

1 2

Third, SHA agrees to amend its Administrative Plan to reflect that upon request by a

3 4

participant, SHA may, in its discretion, consider extenuating circumstances to extend the time

5
6 period that a guest, including a related adult, is allowed to stay in the subsidized residence. Id.

7
8 ¶ 3.3.

9

10

Fourth, SHA agrees to amend its Administrative Plan to require that hearing officer

11 12

decisions upholding termination of Section 8 vouchers include written notice of the availability

13 14

of judicial review. Id. ¶ 3.4.

15 16

Fifth, SHA agrees to provide a new termination hearing to each Class Member who

17 18

requests one in writing in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Id. ¶ 3.5.

19
20 C. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

21 22

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Class Counsel will file a separate request for

23 24

approval from the Court for an award of up to, but no more than, a total of One Hundred Ninety

25
26 Five Thousand Dollars for attorneys’ fees and costs including Class Representative incentive

27
28 payments, if any, which the Court may, in its discretion, allocate out of this amount. SHA will

29
30 pay up to, but no more than a total of One Hundred Ninety-Five Thousand Dollars ($195,000)

31 32

for any such award made by the Court. SHA does not agree that any amount should be allocated

33 34

to the Class Representatives as incentive payments in this case and SHA reserves its right to

35 36

object to and/or to oppose any portion of any motion or request seeking allocation of any amount

37 38

to the Class Representatives as incentive payments. The Parties recognize that allocation of the

39 40

settlement amount among attorneys’ fees and costs, including incentive payments, is

41 42

discretionary with the Court.

43
44 D. Release of Claims

45 46

Under the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs will be deemed to have released any and all

47
48 claim, liability, right, demand, suit, matter, obligation, damage, including consequential

49
50 damages, losses or costs, compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, declaratory

51

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL (No. C09-00226-MJP) – 7

77771-0001/LEGAL21691128.1

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 211 Filed 09/08/11 Page 8 of 23

1 2

relief, attorneys’ fees and costs, action or cause of action of every nature and description

3 4

whatsoever, whether known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, asserted or unasserted,

5
6 accrued or which may thereafter accrue, which regard, arise out of, or relate to facts giving rise

7
8 to the subject matter of the Action or the Defendants’ defense of the Action. All other Class

9
10 Members will be deemed to have released any claim, liability, right, demand, suit, matter,

11 12

obligation, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees and costs, action or cause of action

13 14

of every kind and description, whether known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, asserted or

15 16

unasserted, accrued or which may thereafter accrue, which regard, arise out of, or relate to facts

17 18

giving rise to the subject matter of the Action or the Defendants’ defense of the Action.

19
20 E. Notice

21 22

The Parties have agreed, subject to Court approval, to a notice plan that includes

23 24

individual notice by U.S. Postal Service first-class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to General

25
26 Delivery, Seattle, WA 98101 and also to the last known address for each Class Member. In

27
28 addition, Class Counsel will post the Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Settlement

29
30 Agreement on its website.

31 32

The Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement informs Class Members of the nature of

33 34

the action, the litigation background and terms of the Settlement Agreement, including the

35 36

definition of the Settlement Class, the relief provided by the Settlement Agreement, Class

37 38

Counsel’s request for fees, costs, and incentive payments, and the scope of the release and

39 40

binding nature of the settlement on Class Members. It also describes the procedure for objecting

41 42

to the settlement and states the date and time of the final approval hearing.

43 44

The Settlement Agreement proposes that the notice program set forth above be

45 46

established and notices be sent within thirty days after the Court enters an order granting

47
48 preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement. Pursuant to the requirements of the Class

49
50 Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1715, Defendants shall also serve notice of the Settlement

51

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL (No. C09-00226-MJP) – 8

77771-0001/LEGAL21691128.1

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 211 Filed 09/08/11 Page 9 of 23

1 2

Agreement on the appropriate federal and state officials not later than ten days after the

3 4

Settlement Agreement is filed with the Court.

5
6 F. Objections

7

8

Objections must be received and filed not later than twenty-one days before the Fairness

9
10 Hearing. The written statement must include: (1) a detailed statement of the Class Member’s

11 12

objection(s), as well as the specific reasons for each objection, including any evidence and legal

13 14

authority the Class Member wishes to bring to the Court’s attention and any evidence the Class

15 16

Member wishes to introduce in support of his or her objection(s); (2) the Class Member’s name,

17 18

address, and telephone number; and (3) information demonstrating that the Class Member is

19 20

entitled to be included as a member of the Settlement Class. Class Members or their attorneys

21 22

intending to make an appearance at the Fairness Hearing must, not later than twenty-one days

23 24

before the Fairness Hearing, file and serve a notice of appearance and a notice of their intention

25
26 to appear at the hearing.

27

28

IV. ARGUMENT

29
30 A. Preliminary Approval Is Proper

31

32

1. The Standard for Preliminary Approval

33 34

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) provides that a class action cannot be settled or

35 36

compromised without approval by the court. Judicial approval is required regardless whether the

37 38

action is certified for trial and later settled or is certified for purposes of settlement. Manual for

39 40

Complex Litigation (Fourth) § 21.61 (2004). The approval process typically involves three steps:

41 42

(1) preliminary approval of the proposed settlement; (2) dissemination of mailed and/or

43 44

published notice of the settlement to all affected class members; and (3) a formal fairness

45 46

hearing. Id. § 21.63. Ultimately, to approve the proposed settlement, the court must determine

47
48 that it is fair, reasonable, and adequate. In re Syncor ERISA Litig., 516 F.3d 1095, 1100 (9th Cir.

49

50

51

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL (No. C09-00226-MJP) – 9

77771-0001/LEGAL21691128.1

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 211 Filed 09/08/11 Page 10 of 23

1 2

2008); Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 688 F.2d

3 4

615, 625 (9th Cir. 1982).

5

6

At the preliminary approval stage, the Court’s evaluation of whether the Settlement

7
8 Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate is limited. “Where the proposed settlement appears

9
10 to be the product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations, has no obvious deficiencies,

11 12

does not improperly grant preferential treatment to class representatives or segments of the class

13 14

and falls within the range of possible approval, preliminary approval is granted.” In re NASDAQ

15 16

Market-Makers Antitrust Litig., 176 F.R.D. 99, 102 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). See also Young v. Polo

17 18

Retail, LLC, No. C-02-4546 VRW, 2006 WL 3050861, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2006); In re

19 20

Vitamins Antitrust Litig., Nos. Misc. 99-197 (TFH), MDL 1285, 2001 WL 856292, at *4-5

21 22

(D.D.C. July 25, 2001).

23 24

A presumption of fairness exists if the settlement is reached through arms-length

25
26 negotiation, sufficient investigation has taken place to allow counsel and the court to act

27
28 intelligently, and counsel is experienced in similar types of litigation. Nat’l Rural Telecomm.

29
30 Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 221 F.R.D. 523, 528 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (“A settlement following

31 32

sufficient discovery and genuine arms-length negotiation is presumed fair.”); In re Orthopedic

33 34

Bone Screw Prods. Liab. Litig., 176 F.R.D. 158, 184 (E.D. Pa. 1997) (“Significant weight should

35 36

be attributed to the belief of experienced counsel that settlement is in the best interest of the

37 38

class.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Thus, at this stage, so long as the

39 40

settlement falls into the range of possible approval—giving deference to the result of the Parties’

41 42

arms-length negotiation and the judgment of experienced counsel following sufficient

43 44

investigation—the settlement should be preliminarily approved and a final Fairness Hearing

45 46

scheduled.

47

48

49

50

51

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL (No. C09-00226-MJP) – 10

77771-0001/LEGAL21691128.1

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 211 Filed 09/08/11 Page 11 of 23

1

2. The Proposed Settlement Is Fair and Within the Range of Possible Approval

2

3

a. The Settlement Is the Result of Serious, Arms-Length, Informed

4

Negotiation

5

6

One indication of whether a settlement is fair and reasonable is whether it is the product

7
8 of serious, arms-length negotiation following substantial investigation of the merits of the case.

9
10 Negotiation and investigation minimize any concerns that the Settlement Agreement might be

11 12

the result of collusion among the Parties or their counsel to undermine the interests of the class

13 14

for their own benefit. Indeed, “[a] presumption of correctness is said to attach to a class

15 16

settlement reached in arms-length negotiations between experienced capable counsel after

17 18

meaningful discovery.” Hughes v. Microsoft Corp., Nos. C98-1646C & C93-0178C, 2001 WL

19 20

34089697, at *7 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 26, 2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

21 22

The settlement in this case easily meets this standard. Class Counsel undertook

23 24

significant factual and legal investigation of the issues prior to filing the case and prior to the

25
26 mediation that resulted in the settlement. Class Counsel sought and reviewed approximately 500

27
28 redacted SHA Section 8 hearing decisions before filing suit. Ehman Decl. ¶ 7; Straley Decl. ¶ 8.

29
30 Prior to settlement, Class Counsel reviewed thousands of pages of documents obtained from

31 32

Defendants through an extensive review of SHA participant files, including termination files and

33 34

files where participants sought to add minors or related adults to their households. Ehman Decl.

35 36

¶ 12; Straley Decl. ¶ 13. Class Counsel also reviewed SHA’s administrative plans, procedure

37 38

manuals and relevant electronic case notes and emails. Ehman Decl. ¶ 13; Straley Decl. ¶ 14.

39 40

Following this investigation and review, Class Counsel deposed four SHA staff members,

41 42

including SHA’s general counsel, as well as a high-ranking HUD official. Ehman Decl. ¶ 15;

43 44

Straley Decl. ¶ 16. The information obtained in discovery was used to file motions for summary

45 46

judgment and class certification. Plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion, including the brief and

47
48 supporting exhibits, ran to approximately 1700 pages.

49

50

51

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL (No. C09-00226-MJP) – 11

77771-0001/LEGAL21691128.1

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 211 Filed 09/08/11 Page 12 of 23

1 2

Defendants also engaged in discovery regarding the Plaintiffs’ claims, issued written

3 4

discovery, took depositions, and reviewed thousands of pages of documents. Defendants

5
6 evaluated Plaintiffs’ claims and filed Defendants’ motion for summary judgment seeking

7
8 dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims in their entirety. Defendants also filed their opposition to class

9
10 certification.

11 12

Additionally, the Settlement Agreement unquestionably emerged from a formal, arms-

13 14

length negotiation process between the Parties. Mediation took place over two days with the

15 16

assistance of a retired judge experienced in mediating complex civil litigation. Ehman Decl.

17 18

¶¶ 17-19; Straley Decl. ¶¶ 18-19. Class Counsel is confident, based on experience in litigating

19 20

complex civil matters, that they have a full understanding of the facts at issue and the strengths

21 22

and weaknesses of the allegations in the operative complaint.

23

24

b. The Terms of the Settlement Are Fair and Reasonable

25

26

There can be little doubt that the proposed settlement is “within the range of possible

27
28 approval.” In re NASDAQ Market-Makers Antitrust Litig., 176 F.R.D. at 102. The settlement

29
30 mandates that Defendants make certain changes to SHA’s Administrative Plan and Procedures

31 32

Manual to clarify and improve SHA’s procedures regarding individuals with disabilities and

33 34

those alleging that they have disabilities; amend SHA’s Administrative Plan to list

35 36

documentation it will accept to prove residency of a minor for the purpose of adding minors to

37 38

existing Section 8 vouchers; amend SHA’s Administrative Plan to reflect that upon request by a

39 40

participant, SHA may, in its discretion, consider extenuating circumstances to extend the time

41 42

period that a guest, including a related adult, is allowed to stay in the subsidized residence;

43 44

provide at the end of hearing officers’ termination hearing decisions written notice of the

45 46

participant’s right to judicial review as well as an abbreviated list of legal resources that may be

47
48 available to assist the participant; and provide a new termination hearing to each Class Member

49

50

51

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL (No. C09-00226-MJP) – 12

77771-0001/LEGAL21691128.1

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 211 Filed 09/08/11 Page 13 of 23

1 2

who requests one in writing. This package of procedural improvements and benefits is

3 4

significant.

5

6

The settlement is a fair and reasonable resolution to this litigation. First, it provides Class

7
8 Members, upon timely request in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, with a

9
10 new termination hearing with additional procedural safeguards. Class Members will have the

11 12

opportunity to regain their Section 8 voucher, allowing them access to decent and affordable

13 14

housing. While no result is guaranteed at the new hearing, if a Class Member prevails at her

15 16

hearing, meets all Section 8 voucher income and eligibility requirements, passes a background

17 18

check, and satisfies any outstanding debts to SHA, she will be placed at the top of the Section 8

19 20

waitlist.2 Class Members who meet these requirements will be able to bypass the lengthy

21 22

process of reapplying, going through the lottery and then being placed at the bottom of the

23 24

current waitlist. Instead, their vouchers will be restored in the fastest and most practicable way

25
26 possible.

27

28

Second, under the Settlement Agreement, SHA will take certain actions to ensure that

29
30 disabled voucher holders have an opportunity to seek a reasonable accommodation if needed to

31 32

avoid termination. SHA will clarify its Administrative Plan to make clear that the independent

33 34

hearing officer in a termination hearing will address requests for reasonable accommodation

35 36

raised during the hearing. SHA will also amend its Administrative Plan to reflect its procedure

37 38

for processing pre-hearing accommodation requests. In addition, SHA will modify the definition

39 40

of disability in its Administrative Plan to reflect the current definition of disability under the

41 42

Americans with Disabilities Act and to include temporary disabilities. SHA will supplement its

43 44

Procedures Manual to reflect that its staff members receive training in what constitutes a

45

46

47

48

49

50

2 SHA represents that it is not possible to simply award a voucher to a Settlement Class Member who prevails at a

51

new voucher termination hearing.

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL (No. C09-00226-MJP) – 13

77771-0001/LEGAL21691128.1

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 211 Filed 09/08/11 Page 14 of 23

1 2

disability and in responding to requests for reasonable accommodation. And SHA’s informal

3 4

process of pre-termination conferences will be formalized in the Procedures Manual.

5

6

Third, SHA will amend its Administrative Plan to require consideration, upon request by

7
8 a participant and in SHA’s discretion, of extenuating circumstances as a basis for extending the

9
10 time period that a guest, including a related adult, is allowed to stay in the subsidized residence.

11 12

Fourth, SHA will amend its Administrative Plan to (1) clarify that, in order to add a

13 14

minor to an existing Section 8 voucher, SHA will not require proof of court-awarded custody of

15 16

the minor but will require, in addition to other eligibility requirements, proof that the subsidized

17 18

household is the primary residence of the minor and (2) list the documents it will accept as proof

19 20

that the subsidized household is the primary residence of the minor. This will allow families to

21 22

prove residency of minors without the time and expense of court proceedings.

23 24

Finally, the settlement ensures that all current and future Section 8 participants who lose

25
26 their termination hearing will receive notice of the availability of judicial review. SHA will also

27
28 provide information on how to find legal resources that are available to help the participant.

29

30

Of particular relevance to the reasonableness of the relief obtained under the proposed

31 32

settlement is the fact that Defendants have contested and would continue to contest the merits of

33 34

Class Members’ claims, as well as the Plaintiffs’ ability to pursue this action on a class-wide

35 36

basis. Defendants deny that SHA’s policies and practices violated the Washington and United

37 38

States Constitutions or any of the statutes or regulations asserted by Plaintiffs. Defendants also

39 40

deny that SHA’s actions constituted breach of any contract. Lastly, Defendants deny that

41 42

Plaintiffs’ claims were appropriate for class certification or that Plaintiffs were appropriate class

43 44

representatives.

45 46

Throughout the course of settlement negotiations, the Parties considered factors such as

47
48 the past and ongoing cost of this contentious litigation, the scope of relief that was being sought

49
50 and that might be provided, the cost and benefit of such relief, the risks to each party of class

51

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL (No. C09-00226-MJP) – 14

77771-0001/LEGAL21691128.1

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 211 Filed 09/08/11 Page 15 of 23

1 2

certification and trying the matter, and the possibility of appeals from the Court’s decision which

3 4

would only add to the expense, delay, and uncertainty of the litigation. The Parties believe that

5
6 the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and, given the uncertainties of continued

7
8 litigation, there can be no doubt that this proposed settlement falls well within the range of

9
10 possible approval.

11

12 B. The Settlement Class Should Be Provisionally Certified Pursuant to Federal Rule of

13

Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) For Purposes of Settlement

14 15

The Court should provisionally certify this action as a class action for the purpose of

16 17

settlement pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Provisional certification

18 19

is an appropriate device in the settlement of class actions. See, e.g., Jaffe v. Morgan Stanley &

20 21

Co., No. C-06-3903 TEH, 2008 WL 346417, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2008); In re Portal

22 23

Software, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. C-03-5138 VRW, 2007 WL 1991529, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. June 30,

24 25

2007). Although Defendants vigorously disagree that a class could be certified if the litigation

26
27 proceeded without settlement, the Parties agree that the class may be certified for settlement

28
29 purposes only under Rule 23(b)(2).

30

31 32

1. Plaintiffs Contend That the Settlement Class Has Numerous Members and Individual Joinder of All Class Members Would Be Impracticable3

33 34

The numerosity requirement is presumed to be met when a proposed class exceeds forty

35 36

members. See, e.g., Consol. Rail Corp. v. Town of Hyde Park, 47 F.3d 473, 483 (2d Cir. 1995);

37 38

McCluskey v. Trustees of Red Dot Corp. Emp. Stock Ownership Plan & Trust, 268 F.R.D. 670,

39 40

673-74 (W.D. Wash. 2010) (collecting cases). In assessing impracticality of joinder where the

41 42

number of class members is not great, courts consider such factors as the geographical diversity

43 44

of class members, the ability of individual claimants to institute separate suits, and whether

45

46

47

48

49

3 This joint motion is based in part on Plaintiffs’ factual and legal arguments. Defendants contest

50

Plaintiffs’ arguments regarding class certification but agree, for settlement purposes only, that certification of a class

51

is appropriate given the risks of proceeding with litigation.

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL (No. C09-00226-MJP) – 15

77771-0001/LEGAL21691128.1

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 211 Filed 09/08/11 Page 16 of 23

1 2

injunctive or declaratory relief is sought. 1 Alba Conte & Herbert Newberg, Newberg on Class

3 4

Actions § 3:6 (4th ed. 2011).

5

6

The Settlement Class that Plaintiffs seek to represent consists of 82 former voucher

7
8 holders. Given the presumption that the numerosity requirement is met for classes exceeding

9
10 forty, the requirement has been satisfied. In addition, the realities facing former voucher holders

11 12

make joinder impracticable. When their Section 8 vouchers were terminated, the Class Members

13 14

were placed at serious risk of losing stable housing. Without stable housing and financial means,

15 16

it is unlikely that these individuals would institute separate lawsuits.

17

18

2. Plaintiffs Contend That Questions of Law and Fact Are Common to

19

Plaintiffs and Members of the Settlement Class

20 21

Next, Rule 23(a)(2) requires that common questions of law or fact exist among class

22 23

members. “Commonality requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that class members have suffered

24 25

the same injury.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, __ U.S. __, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2551, 180 L. Ed.

26
27 2d 374 (2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Courts have certified classes of

28
29 voucher holders in similar circumstances. See, e.g., Davis v. Mansfield Metro. Hous. Auth., 751

30
31 F.2d 180, 182 n.2 (6th Cir. 1984) (class of voucher holders certified to challenge housing

32 33

authority’s pretermination notices and procedures); McNeill v. New York City Hous. Auth., 719

34 35

F. Supp. 233, 251-53 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (same); Ferguson v. Metro. Dev. & Hous. Agency, 485 F.

36 37

Supp. 517, 519 (M.D. Tenn. 1980) (same). “In a civil rights suit, commonality is generally

38 39

satisfied where the lawsuit challenges a system-wide practice or policy that affects all of the

40 41

putative class members.” Tarrer v. Pierce Cnty., No. C10-5670 BHS, 2010 WL 5300801, at *2

42 43

(W.D. Wash. Dec. 21, 2010) (citing LaDuke v. Nelson, 762 F.2d 1318, 1332 (9th Cir. 1985)).

44 45

Here, Plaintiffs alleged that SHA’s policies and procedures were unlawful in a variety of

46
47 ways, each of which affected at least one of the Plaintiffs and some or all of the Class Members.

48
49 For example, Plaintiffs alleged that SHA failed to consider Class Members’ requests for

50
51 disability accommodations during voucher termination hearings; failed to inform Class Members

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL (No. C09-00226-MJP) – 16

77771-0001/LEGAL21691128.1

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 211 Filed 09/08/11 Page 17 of 23

1 2

of their right to judicial review of the hearing officer’s decision; failed to properly train the

3 4

hearing officer who oversaw the Class Members’ voucher termination hearings; imposed

5
6 unlawfully burdensome requirements on Class Members who wished to add a minor to a

7
8 voucher; and imposed unlawfully burdensome requirements on Class Members who wished to

9
10 allow a guest, including a related adult, to remain in a subsidized household temporarily. Each

11 12

Class Member shares common legal questions regarding the lawfulness of SHA’s policies and

13 14

procedures.

15

16

3. Plaintiffs Contend That Their Claims Are Typical of the Claims of the

17

Settlement Class

18 19

Rule 23(a)(3), which requires that the named plaintiffs be members of the class and

20 21

possess claims that are “reasonably co-extensive with those of absent class members,” is also

22 23

interpreted permissively. Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 1998). “The

24 25

test of typicality is whether other members have the same or similar injury, whether the action is

26
27 based on conduct which is not unique to the named plaintiffs, and whether other class members

28
29 have been injured by the same course of conduct.” Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497,

30
31 508 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

32 33

Here, Plaintiffs have claims that are typical of the Settlement Class. Both Ms. Wilson

34 35

and Ms. Townes together were subject to the allegedly unlawful hearing procedures described in

36 37

the previous subsection, and the same hearing officer that presided over the hearings for each

38 39

Class Member also conducted the named Plaintiffs’ hearings. Plaintiffs were also subject to the

40 41

other allegedly unlawful policies described above. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical.

42

43

4. Plaintiffs Contend That the Class Representatives and Their Counsel Have

44

Fairly and Adequately Protected the Interests of the Class and Will Continue

45

to Do So

46

47

Finally, Rule 23(a)(4) and Rule 23(g) together ensure the satisfaction of what courts have

48
49 recognized as a two-part test: (1) that the named plaintiffs and their counsel do not have

50
51 conflicts of interest with the proposed class; and (2) that the named plaintiffs and their counsel

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL (No. C09-00226-MJP) – 17

77771-0001/LEGAL21691128.1

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 211 Filed 09/08/11 Page 18 of 23

1 2

can prosecute the action vigorously through qualified counsel. Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020. In

3 4

considering the adequacy of counsel, the court must consider: (1) the work counsel has done in

5
6 investigating the potential claims in the action; (2) counsel’s experience in handling class actions

7
8 and the types of claims asserted in the action; (3) counsel’s knowledge of the applicable law; and

9
10 (4) the resources that counsel will commit to representing the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A).

11 12

Plaintiffs adequately represent the interests of absent class members if they have no conflicts

13 14

with class interests and are willing and able to vigorously prosecute the action on behalf of the

15 16

class. In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 454, 462-63 (9th Cir. 2000).

17 18

Class Counsel, Columbia Legal Services (“CLS”), is a nonprofit law firm that has

19 20

extensive experience in housing issues as well as complex civil actions, including class actions.

21 22

CLS is also experienced in representing low-income clients. Ehman Decl. ¶¶ 3-5; Straley Decl.

23 24

¶¶ 4-6. As described in more detail above, Class Counsel has invested significant time,

25
26 resources and effort in investigating the claims in this action. Class Counsel has fairly and

27
28 adequately protected the interests of the Settlement Class and will continue to do so if appointed

29
30 by the court as Class Counsel.

31 32

The named Plaintiffs do not have conflicts of interest with the proposed Settlement Class.

33 34

The only claim asserted by one of the Class Representatives that differs from the claims asserted

35 36

on behalf of the Settlement Class is Ms. Wilson’s claim for monetary damages.4 Monetary

37 38

damages were never sought on behalf of the Settlement Class. A named representative may seek

39 40

remedies that are not sought for the class as a whole. It is only “[w]hen the interests of the class

41 42

representative can be pursued . . . at the expense of the interests of all the class members, and the

43 44

resulting conflict cannot be resolved by the creation of subclasses or otherwise abated, [that] the

45 46

conflict will render the plaintiff an inadequate representative.” 1 Conte & Newberg, supra,

47

48

49

50

4 Ms. Townes initially asserted a claim for damages but she sought and the Court granted dismissal of that claim.

51

See Dkt. 171.

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL (No. C09-00226-MJP) – 18

77771-0001/LEGAL21691128.1

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 211 Filed 09/08/11 Page 19 of 23

1 2

§ 3:26 (footnotes omitted). Here, monetary damages were never sought on behalf of the

3 4

Settlement Class and the damages being awarded to Ms. Wilson through the settlement do not

5
6 cause a conflict. Ms. Wilson and Ms. Townes are adequate representatives.

7

8

5. The Alleged Acts or Omissions of Defendants Apply Generally to the

9

Settlement Class, So That Final Injunctive Relief or Corresponding

10

Declaratory Relief Is Appropriate Respecting the Settlement Class as a

11

Whole

12 13

The settlement of this action is maintainable under Rule 23(b)(2), which permits class

14 15

certification if “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply

16 17

generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is

18 19

appropriate respecting the class as a whole.”

20 21

Ms. Wilson and Ms. Townes seek injunctive and declaratory relief requiring SHA to

22 23

provide legally adequate hearings to all people whom it has terminated pursuant to an inadequate

24 25

unconstitutional termination hearing process.

26

27

Where, as here, plaintiffs allege discriminatory and unlawful

28

systemic or policy-level actions, certification under Rule 23(b)(2)

29

is proper, and in fact this case presents a “prime example[]” of the

30

type of case for which Rule 23(b)(2) certification is particularly

31

appropriate.

32 33

Taylor v. Hous. Auth. of New Haven, 257 F.R.D. 23, 32 (D. Conn. 2009) (quoting Amchem

34 35

Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 614, 117 S. Ct. 2231, 138 L. Ed. 2d 297 (1997)), vacated

36 37

on other grounds, 267 F.R.D. 36 (D. Conn. 2010) (decertifying class after trial because facts no

38 39

longer supported certification), aff’d sub nom. Taylor ex rel. Wazyluk v. Hous. Auth. of City of

40 41

New Haven, 645 F.3d 152 (2d Cir. 2011). Here, Defendants applied the same allegedly deficient

42 43

policies and procedures, to each member of the Settlement Class. The nature of the allegations at

44 45

issue and the nature of the relief sought both support certification under Federal Rule of Civil

46
47 Procedure 23(b)(2).

48

49

50

51

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL (No. C09-00226-MJP) – 19

77771-0001/LEGAL21691128.1

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 211 Filed 09/08/11 Page 20 of 23

1 C. The Proposed Notice to the Settlement Class of the Settlement Should Be Approved

2 3

Due process requires that interested parties be provided with “notice reasonably

4
5 calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise [them] of the pendency of the action and

6
7 afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust

8
9 Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314, 70 S. Ct. 652, 94 L. Ed. 865 (1950). The settlement notice must fairly

10 11

apprise the class members of the terms of the proposed compromise and give class members

12 13

sufficient information to decide whether they should accept the benefits offered or object to the

14 15

settlement. Id. Additionally, the notice must be designed so as to have a reasonable chance of

16 17

reaching a substantial percentage of the class members. Id. at 318.

18 19

Here, the proposed notice and the method of dissemination meet each of these

20 21

requirements. First, the notice is written in plain language that uses short sentences, everyday

22 23

terms and the active voice to help readers find what they need, understand what they find, and

24 25

effectively use what they find. The first page of the notice uses a logical organization and a chart

26
27 to help readers understand the settlement terms, determine if they are a Class Member, and

28
29 understand their options. The document also contains a table of contents and uses an easy to

30
31 understand question-and-answer format to apprise Class Members of their rights and the

32 33

information necessary to determine whether to accept the settlement or object.

34 35

Second, the settlement provides for several methods to ensure that the notice reaches as

36 37

many Class Members as possible. The notice will be sent to general delivery and the last known

38 39

address of all Class Members. Class Counsel will also post the Notice of Proposed Class Action

40 41

Settlement and Settlement Agreement on its website.

42 43

Third, the notice provides all the information necessary for Class Members to make

44 45

informed decisions with respect to whether they object to the proposed settlement.

46

47

Accordingly, the content and method of dissemination of the proposed notice fully

48
49 comports with the requirements of due process and applicable case law. As such, the notice

50

51

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL (No. C09-00226-MJP) – 20

77771-0001/LEGAL21691128.1

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 211 Filed 09/08/11 Page 21 of 23

1 2

should be approved by the Court, and the Court should direct that the notice be distributed as

3 4

agreed by the Parties.

5
6 D. The Fairness Hearing and Order of Preliminary Approval

7

8

Assuming the Court grants the motion for preliminary approval, the Parties propose the

9
10 following sequence of events and deadlines.

11

12

13

Event

14

Timing

15 1. Deadline for dissemination of Notice of

16 17

Proposed Class Action Settlement

Not later than thirty days after Preliminary Approval Order signed

18

19 2. Deadline for Class Counsel to file petition for Not later than sixty days before the

20

award of attorneys’ fees, costs, and incentive Fairness Hearing

21

payments to Class Representatives

22

23 3. Deadline for filing objections
24
25

Not later than twenty-one days before the Fairness Hearing

26 27

4. Deadline for responses to Class Counsel’s

Not later than twenty-one days before

28

petition for award of attorneys’ fees, costs, and the Fairness Hearing

29

incentive payments to Class Representatives

30

31 5. Deadline for Class Counsel to file any reply in Not later than six days before the

32

support of Class Counsel’s petition for award Fairness Hearing

33

of attorneys’ fees, costs, and incentive

34 35

payments to Class Representatives

36 37

6. Deadline for Class Counsel to reply to any

Not later than six days before the

38

opposition memorandum filed by any objector Fairness Hearing

39

40 7. Fairness Hearing

At least ninety days after Preliminary

41

Approval Order signed

42

43

V. CONCLUSION

44

45

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs, Defendants, and their respective counsel

46

47 respectfully request that the Court grant this motion for preliminary approval of the Settlement,

48

49 provisionally certify the Settlement Class, approve the content and authorize the dissemination of

50

51

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL (No. C09-00226-MJP) – 21

77771-0001/LEGAL21691128.1

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 211 Filed 09/08/11 Page 22 of 23

1 2

the proposed settlement notice, and schedule a Fairness Hearing and adopt the proposed schedule

3 4

of events and deadlines.

5

6

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 8th day of September, 2011.

7

8

9

10
11 By: s/ Merf Ehman, WSBA # 29231 12 merf.ehman@columbialegal.org 13 Nicholas B. Straley, WSBA # 25963 14 nick.straley@columbialegal.org 15 Columbia Legal Services 16 101 Yesler Way, Suite 300 17 Seattle, WA 98104 18 Telephone: 206.464.5933 19 Facsimile: 206.382.3386
20
21 By: s/ Rebecca Engrav, WSBA # 33275 22 REngrav@perkinscoie.com 23 Holly M. Simpkins, WSBA # 33297 24 HSimpkins@perkinscoie.com 25 Ryan Spear, WSBA # 39974 26 RSpear@perkinscoie.com 27 Perkins Coie LLP 28 1201 Third Ave., Suite 4800 29 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 30 Telephone: 206.359.8000 31 Facsimile: 206.359.9000

By: s/ Kristen Dorrity, WSBA # 23674 kristen.dorrity@andrews-skinner.com Laura Hawes Young, WSBA #39346 laura.young@andrews-skinner.com Andrews Skinner, P.S. 645 Elliott Ave., W, Suite 350 Seattle, WA 98119-3911 Telephone: 206.223.9248
By: s/ James E. Fearn, Jr., WSBA # 2959 jfearn@seattlehousing.org Seattle Housing Authority 120 Sixth Avenue North Seattle, WA 98109-1028 Telephone: 206.615.3570 Facsimile: 206.615.3509
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

32
33 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL (No. C09-00226-MJP) – 22

77771-0001/LEGAL21691128.1

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 211 Filed 09/08/11 Page 23 of 23

1 2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

3 4

I hereby certify that on the 8th day of September, 2011, I electronically filed the

5
6 foregoing JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CLASS

7
8 ACTION SETTLEMENT with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will

9
10 send notice to counsel as follows:

11

12 Kristen Dorrity, WSBA #23674

James Ernest Fearn, Jr., WSBA #2959

13 Laura Hawes Young, WSBA #39346

14 Andrews Skinner, P.S.

15 16

645 Elliott Avenue West, Suite 350

17 Seattle, WA 98119-3911

18 Telephone: 206.223.9248

Seattle Housing Authority 120 Sixth Avenue North P.O. Box 19028 Seattle, WA 98109 Telephone: 206.615.3572

19 Facsimile: 206.623.9050

Facsimile: 206.615.3509

20 Email: kristen.dorrity@andrews-skinner.com Email:

21

laura.young@andrews-skinner.com jfearn@seattlehousing.org

22

23 Counsel for Defendants Seattle Housing Authority and Thomas Tierney
24

25

26

27

I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the United States of

28

29 America that the foregoing is true and correct.

30

31

DATED at Seattle, Washington this 8th day of September, 2011.

32

33

34

35

s/ Rebecca S. Engrav, WSBA #33275

36 37 38 39 40 41 42

REngrav@perkinscoie.com Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Ave., Suite 4800 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Telephone: 206.359.8000 Facsimile: 206.359.9000

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL (No. C09-00226-MJP) – 23

77771-0001/LEGAL21691128.1

 
 Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 225 Filed 01/10/12 Page 1 of 5

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 225 Filed 01/10/12 Page 2 of 5

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 225 Filed 01/10/12 Page 3 of 5

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 225 Filed 01/10/12 Page 4 of 5

Case 2:09-cv-00226-MJP Document 225 Filed 01/10/12 Page 5 of 5