Opinion ID: 205533
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Prohibitory Injunction

Text: With respect to the prohibitory portion of the injunction, the district court correctly determined that Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits because § 1437f(t)(1)(B) confers on the individual Plaintiffs a right to remain in their rental units. The district court also correctly determined that the individual Plaintiffs were likely to suffer irreparable harm absent preliminary relief because they faced eviction from their rental units. Defendants communicated an intention to charge market rates for the individual Plaintiffs' apartments, and Plaintiffs demonstrated an inability to pay those market rates. Defendants have further voiced an intention to refuse to accept enhanced vouchers, and to evict Plaintiffs for nonpayment of market rates. It is well-established that the loss of an interest in real property constitutes an irreparable injury. See McNeill v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth., 719 F.Supp. 233, 254 (S.D.N.Y.1989) (holding that risk of eviction from Section 8 housing satisfies irreparable injury prong of preliminary injunction test) (collecting cases); accord Sundance Land Corp. v. Cmty. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 840 F.2d 653, 661 (9th Cir.1988) (holding that threatened foreclosure of real property gave rise to immediate, irreparable injury). Given the district court's factual findings regarding the likelihood of eviction, it reasonably concluded that Defendants' threat to evict Plaintiffs created a likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction barring future evictions. See, e.g., Enyart v. Nat'l Conf. of Bar Exam'rs, Inc., 630 F.3d 1153, 1166 (9th Cir.2011) (Because the district court's finding of irreparable harm ... is supported by facts in the record, it does not constitute an abuse of discretion.); Dominguez v. Schwarzenegger, 596 F.3d 1087, 1098 (9th Cir.2010). The district court also properly evaluated the balance of hardships and the public interest together. See Cal. Pharmacists Ass'n, 596 F.3d at 1114-15 (considering these factors in tandem). The court concluded that the individual Plaintiffs' risk of eviction, the fact that Defendants would not be unduly burdened by the proposed injunction because they would continue to receive market value rent for their rental units, and the public's interest in compliance with the Section 8 statute, all militated in favor of preliminary relief. None of these findings was clearly erroneous. The hardship of eviction on elderly low-income tenants is self-evident. Defendants, in contrast, will only suffer hardship if they refuse to execute HAP contracts with Oakland Housing Authority; otherwise, they are guaranteed rents that are reasonable in comparison with rents charged for comparable dwelling units in the private, unassisted local market. 42 U.S.C. § 1437f( o )(10)(A). In light of the district court's observation that Defendants could identify no specific terms in the HAP contract which were objectionable, the court did not abuse its discretion in balancing the parties' relative hardships. Nor was the court's conclusion that the public interest favored entry of the preliminary injunction an abuse of discretion. [I]t is obvious that compliance with the law is in the public interest. N.D. v. Haw. Dep't of Educ., 600 F.3d 1104, 1113 (9th Cir.2010). In sum, the district court did not abuse its discretion by entering an injunction preventing Defendants from evicting Plaintiffs for paying their pre-lawsuit Section 8 contribution, or from charging Plaintiffs an increased rent without accepting enhanced vouchers.