Opinion ID: 770594
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Disposition of HRI's Complaint

Text: 31 For approximately two weeks Sara Pratt, the director of HUD's Office of Investigations in Washington, reviewed HRI's complaint and the San Francisco Office's report and case file. Finding that the file contained little if any information on the state-court lawsuit filed by the plaintiffs' organization, Pratt asked the San Francisco Office to obtain documents and information regarding that action. Upon receiving these materials, Pratt determined that the Alameda County Superior Court had in fact found that Linda Maio's simultaneous service on the Zoning Adjustment Board and RCD's board constituted a conflict of interest that violated a Berkeley ordinance. The court, however, had found no violation of state law requiring invalidation of the use permit, and considered the good faith of the zoning board member in doing so. Pratt concluded: 32 [A]t the time the complaint was filed, on November 1, 1993, the lawsuit presented material questions of fact and/or of law and was not clearly frivolous. Moreover, the state court decision in the case, entered in February 1994, indicated that the lawsuit was premised on a reasonable basis in fact or in law (that is, that it stated a violation of a local ordinance) and, but for the good faith exception contained in state law, would have constituted a successful legal aim. The respondents' actions in instituting and prosecuting a lawsuit are thus protected by the First Amendment. 33 Pratt also concluded that the plaintiffs' distribution of flyers and newsletters and lobbying of public officials were activities protected by the First Amendment and did not constitute a violation of the Fair Housing Act. HUD issued a Determination of No Reasonable Cause on August 16, 1994.