Los Angeles Housing Authority (HACLA) Class Action Settlement
You are a member of the Damages Class if you were a voucher participant under the HACLA Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program (“HCVP”) (referred to at times as “Voucher Participant”) beginning April 2, 2004, and paid a higher rent to your landlord than you otherwise would have paid if not for the reduced subsidy in effect during the period from July 1, 2005 through April 30, 2007. Subject to certain limitations, you could receive a reimbursement for up to 11 months that you overpaid your rent.
Rule 23(b)(2) “Injunctive Relief Class”: All HACLA Section 8 beneficiaries who in the past received, or in the future may receive, notices of a Voucher Payment Standard decrease.
Rule 23(b)(3) “Damages Class”: All HACLA Section 8 tenants, between June 1, 2005 and September 30, 2006, whose rental contribution for a period not to exceed eleven months was greater than it would have been but for the 2004 decrease to the Voucher Payment Standard.
Members of the class are eligible to receive up to 11 month reimbursement of overpaid rent
Proof of Purchase
Nozzi v. Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles, et al.,Case No. 2:07-cv-00380-PA-FFMDistrict Court for the Central District of California
This lawsuit challenged the adequacy of HACLA’s notice explaining a reduction in its subsidy to Section 8 participants. The lawsuit claimed that the notice, which Section 8 participants were entitled to receive one year before the reduced subsidy took effect as to them, was so deficient in explaining the effect of the reduction that it violated the constitutional right to due process of law and certain California state laws. As a result, according to the lawsuit, the reduction in HACLA’s subsidy was unlawful, and the affected tenants are entitled to damages in the amount of the additional rent they paid their landlords that they would not have paid if the subsidy had not been reduced.
The lawsuit also claimed that some participants could be entitled to other types of damages if they could show them, and that all Section 8 participants, present and future, were entitled to an order that HACLA’s future notices adequately explain the likely or potential effect of any subsidy reduction.