## Facts

- Park Village Apartments in Oakland, California operated as a project-based Section 8 property under a long-term HUD contract.
- The Mortimer Howard Trust (the owner) opted out when the contract expired and substantially increased rents.
- Elderly, low-income tenants received “enhanced vouchers” administered through the Oakland Housing Authority (OHA), intended to let tenants remain in place by covering rent above ordinary voucher limits (subject to statutory conditions).
- The owner refused to accept enhanced vouchers, declined to enter Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) contracts with OHA, and threatened eviction for nonpayment of the full increased rent.
- Tenants and their association sued for injunctive and declaratory relief to prevent eviction and require acceptance of enhanced vouchers.
- The district court issued a preliminary injunction barring eviction for nonpayment of amounts covered by enhanced vouchers and ordering the owner to enter HAP contracts with OHA; the owner appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether enhanced-voucher recipients have an enforceable statutory right to remain in their current units after a project-based Section 8 opt-out so long as the units continue to be offered for rental housing and are otherwise eligible for assistance.
2. Whether that right permits a court to preliminarily enjoin eviction when tenants pay only their income-based share and rely on enhanced vouchers for the balance.
3. Whether a court may issue a mandatory preliminary injunction compelling a landlord to enter into HAP contracts with a public housing authority to facilitate voucher payments.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the preliminary injunction.
- The court held the individual tenants showed a likelihood of success that the statute confers a right to remain in their units using enhanced vouchers, subject to statutory conditions.
- The court affirmed the injunction insofar as it prevented eviction of the individual tenant plaintiffs based solely on paying only their required tenant share while relying on enhanced vouchers.
- The court reversed and remanded the portion of the injunction requiring the owner to execute HAP contracts with OHA, finding no adequate statutory basis for mandatory, contract-forcing relief at the preliminary stage.

## Legal Principles

- Enhanced-voucher provisions in 42 U.S.C. § 1437f use rights-creating language that can confer an enforceable “right to elect to remain” in the same project after an owner opts out, so long as the unit remains offered for rental housing and is otherwise eligible.
- A landlord may not nullify that statutory right by evicting an enhanced-voucher tenant solely because the tenant tenders only the income-based tenant share and relies on the voucher for the remainder.
- Preliminary injunctive relief may preserve tenants’ continued occupancy and prevent displacement when irreparable harm is shown and statutory rights are likely violated.
- Courts should not impose mandatory preliminary injunctions that compel a landlord to enter a new contractual relationship (such as a HAP contract) without clear statutory authorization or a showing that such relief is necessary to protect the statutory right.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit recognized that enhanced-voucher tenants have a statutory right to remain in their units after a project-based Section 8 opt-out and upheld preliminary relief preventing eviction that would defeat that right, but it rejected mandatory preliminary relief compelling the landlord to sign HAP contracts absent clear statutory grounding.


Park Vill. Apartment Tenants Ass’n v. Mortimer Howard Tr., 636 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2011)