Judge Mitchell L. Beckloff, Case 23STCP00040 2023-02-03 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mitchell L. Beckloff, Case: 23STCP00040, Date: 2023-02-03 Tentative Ruling

Respondent, Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA), issued an administrative decision on October 17, 2022 terminating Section 8 rental assistance for Petitioner, Karine Dzhambazian. Petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandate seeking an order compelling HACLA to set aside its administrative decision. Petitioner now moves the court for a stay of that administrative decision pending trial on her writ petition.

HACLA did not file an opposition. Consequently, the court considers HACLA’s opposition to Petitioner’s ex parte application for a stay as an opposition to Petitioner’s motion. (As the ex parte hearing, the court issued a stay pending a hearing on the motion on statutory time.)

Petitioner’s objections to Exhibit A through C attached to HACLA’s opposition are sustained.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, subdivision (g) provides in relevant part:

“. . . the court in which proceedings under this section are instituted may stay the operation of the administrative order or decision pending the judgment of the court, or until the filing of a notice of appeal from the judgment or until the expiration of the time for filing the notice, whichever occurs first. However, no such stay shall be imposed or continued if the court is satisfied that it is against the public interest.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5, subd. (g).)

Petitioner seeks a stay of HACLA’s termination of her Section 8 rental assistance and a stay of the HACLA’s collection of its alleged overpayment to Petitioner.

By way of background, HACLA terminated Petitioner’s housing assistance because it determined Petitioner permitted her adult son, Edgar, to reside in her rental housing without HACLA’s authorization and approval. HACLA found Petitioner failed to report the change in her family composition and/or Edgar’s income. (Dzhambazian Decl., Ex. B.)

Petitioner requests the court stay HACLA’s decision on the grounds the stay will not be against the public interest, Petitioner will likely prevail on the merits, and Petitioner will suffer irreparable harm absent a stay.[1]

First, the potential harm to Petitioner is substantial. She represents absent a stay she will be unable to pay her rent of $1,564 a month and likely be evicted for nonpayment of rent. (K. Dzhambazian Decl., ¶¶ 4, 14.) Petitioner is nearly 70 years old with several significant medical conditions, and she describes herself as disabled. (K. Dzhambazian Decl., ¶¶ 3, 5-6.)

Second, Petitioner contends HACLA abused its discretion when it issued its administrative decision. She argues the HACLA’s hearing officer failed to consider important evidence submitted by Petitioner showing her son did not reside with her. She also contends the hearing officer relied on inadmissible hearsay to find against her. Petitioner submits her own declaration and the declaration of her son in support of her motion. (K. Dzhambazian Decl., ¶¶ 6-7, 13; E. Dzhambazian decl., ¶¶ 3-5, 7, 9.)

HACLA contends that Petitioner will not prevail on the merits. However, as result of Petitioner’s successful evidentiary objections, HACLA has submitted no admissible evidence in support of its opposition. Without evidence, HACLA’s opposition is pure argument.

Finally, as to public interest issue, the court does not find that it would be against the public interest to grant the stay. Admittedly, if Petitioner’s petition is ultimately denied, Petitioner will have the unwarranted benefit of Section 8 housing assistance; HACLA’s opposition suggests a stay in this matter will cost the public taxpayers approximately $19,000. A wrongful termination of Petitioner’s section 8 housing assistance, however, would cause significant and likely irreparable harm to Petitioner, whose evidence demonstrates she is a vulnerable member of the community. Ensuring HACLA properly executed its public duties to the benefit of this vulnerable member of the population furthers the public interest.[2]

The court finds that Petitioner has demonstrated no harm to the public if a stay is granted.

The motion is granted. The court will hear argument on a bond but is inclined not to require a bond under these circumstances. (See Reply 6:21-23. [“Requiring her to post a bond would defeat the purpose of granting a stay in the first place as Petitioner would still end up defaulting on the payment of her rent.”])

[1] A showing of irreparable harm or a likelihood of success on the merits is not an element of Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, subdivision (g). The court is not inclined to find “common sense and propriety” necessarily requires that the court consider such factors. (Opp. to Ex Parte 3:21-25.) Nevertheless, the court finds that these factors inform on the court’s exercise of its discretion to issue a stay here.

[2] Further, no stay of the termination of Section 8 benefits would ever be granted if the costs of HACLA (and the public) demonstrated a stay would be against the public interest without regard to the unique facts of each case. (Reply 6:8-10.)