Search

Pacific Legal Foundation filed the nation’s first lawsuit challenging the Education Department’s unacceptable abuse of executive authority to restore the rule of law and to enforce the Constitution’s separation of powers.

The government cannot destroy owners’ fundamental right to repossess their property by prohibiting their ability to evict bad tenants. Represented at no charge by Pacific Legal Foundation, Sheanna, John, Jacqueline, Michael, and Robert are fighting back. These small-time rental property owners and the nonprofit Housing Providers of America filed a federal lawsuit to restore their property rights.

Life has not been easy for Deborah Foss in recent years. The 66-year-old grandmother lives in Massachusetts on a small, fixed income from Social Security. She suffers from several medical conditions, including chronic lymphocytic leukemia, COPD, and neuropathy. Despite these struggles, Deborah cared for her ailing mother for the last 10 years of her life.

Deborah hoped her 2015 purchase of a home would help put her hardships behind her. After her mother died, she used money from the sale of her mother’s house in Quincy, Massachusetts, and her life savings to buy a $168,500, two-unit home in New Bedford.

Howard Iten is a retired auto mechanic who greatly depends on rental income from his one commercial property in Lawndale, California. His current tenant, however, is an auto repair franchisee who has refused to pay much of his rent during the COVID-19 pandemic, even though his business has been fully open the entire time. He owes Howard thousands of dollars in back rent but is protected from eviction by Los Angeles County’s commercial eviction moratorium. Howard cannot require payment of back-rent until a full year after the moratorium expires and can never collect interest or fees. And with fewer than 10 employees, all the tenant needs to prove pandemic hardship is his word.

In September 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) adopted an order that prohibited certain evictions for non-payment of rent. However, in its haste to enact and enforce a national eviction ban, the CDC overstepped its lawful authority by exercising legislative power reserved to Congress, and it did so at the expense of struggling landlords who often depend on rental income to make ends meet. PLF filed two lawsuits on behalf of landlords in Ohio and Louisiana. Skyworks vs. CDC ended in victory with the first judicial opinion setting aside the eviction moratorium for lack of statutory authority. Chambless v. CDC was favorably resolved after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with our claims and ruled the CDC’s eviction ban unlawful.

In the wake of COVID-19, Washington State and Seattle joined a number of cities and states to enact emergency eviction bans that eliminated landlords’ ability to evict tenants who violate lease terms, such as by neglecting to pay their rent. Seattle added an ordinance that prohibits landlords from seeking full repayment for up to a year from the emergency’s end date. This means Mark Travers, who built and leases a couple of rental units in Seattle, has no legal way to deal with two tenants who stopped paying their rent in April and owe $14,000 in back rent. Represented by PLF free of charge, the Traverses’ business, El Papel, LLC, and other small-scale landlords are challenging these eviction bans that go far beyond helping those affected by the pandemic.

Eviction is a critical tool for landlords to manage their property by removing tenants who refuse to pay rent or create nuisances and safety hazards. The process allows landlords to remove tenants who deliberately withhold rent or damage property, so that they can aid tenants experiencing hardship and offer housing to good renters—a particularly important consideration during the coronavirus pandemic. But the California Judicial Council decided to take matters into its own hands and effectively banned all evictions by forbidding courts from issuing summons or entering default judgments.

Their measure, Emergency Rule 1, meant that landlords like Peggy Christensen, a retiree who depends on her rental income, could not take legal action against tenants who damaged the property, harassed other tenants, or refused to pay rent. It also meant that landlords like Peggy were forced to turn away considerate renters in need of housing. In making this rule, the Judicial Council seized policymaking power from the legislature and governor to block landlords’ access to the courts. Peggy and Peter Martin, another landlord, fought back with a lawsuit to rein in the Judicial Council’s illegal overreach, restore the rule of law, and protect the entire state’s critical rental housing industry.

In early March 2020, Luis Ramirez closed his Hartford, CT, nail salon, following Gov. Ned Lamont’s executive orders for statewide shutdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Luis and his wife, Rosiris, have since struggled to earn income and pay rent on their salon. When Luis and Rosiris thought they’d be able to reopen on May 20, they scraped together $800 to comply with the necessary precautions to safely serve customers. But the state, under the unlawful authority of the governor, inexplicably pushed back nail salons’ reopening to June 17—or later—despite allowing hair salons to open on June 1. Represented by PLF free of charge, Luis and Rosiris are fighting back in a lawsuit against the governor’s unconstitutional power grab that’s robbing them of their right to responsibly open their business.