Fontana Redevelopment Agency against interested parties, Orange County Superior Court (2003); 153 Cal.App.4. 902 (4th dist., 2007). appeal a court decision in a validation proceeding against the Agency`s attempt to validate a bond issue for exceeding the Agency`s debt ceiling and for failing to comply with its obligations to affordable housing; The measures also called into question the Agency`s attempt to confirm an agreement with the state that allegedly concluded an audit in which the agency allegedly diverted about $60 million from modest- and middle-income housing for affordable housing. (Co-Counsel with Western Center on Law – Poverty, Inland Counties Legal Services and Law Offices of Cory Briggs.) Hallfeldt v. City of Folsom, Sacramento County Superior Court (2002). Follow asked Folsom not to take over, for ten years, a housing element that provides sites and resources for housing development and removes constraints to cover the city`s share of the regional needs for affordable housing for low- and very-income households. The representation of interests began with a negotiated legal action system that was not put in place by the city. At trial, we decided to consider our application for a residential element, the court ordered the city to bring its residential element into compliance with the law and order the construction on 600 hectares until a valid residential element was accepted. The tally included the adoption of an inclusion regulation, an updated residential trust fund and housing regulations.

(Co-Counsel with Legal Services of Northern California.) Community Housing Improvement Program v. Stadt Orland, Bezirksgericht, E.D.C.A. (2001). The planned billing and judgment require the city to identify and approve the development of 48 farm workers` housing units by petitioners. The city had declared a moratorium on the construction of apartment buildings on the petitioner`s first site. (Co-Counsel with California Rural Legal Assistance.) “For me, now that cycling is becoming a more professional and bigger sport, there probably needs to be a more formal reform in terms of transfers,” he said. “That`s what`s going to have to come out of the work of the governing body. It will also have to come from the agreement of the teams involved. Lagunas v. Stockton Redevelopment Agency, U.S. Dist. Short, E.D.

(1998). The action called into question Stockton`s “Gateway” renovation project, which wanted to demolish four one-room occupancy hotels and supplant residents to make room for a McDonald`s and a gas station. These measures were decided through a regime requiring replacement plans and relocation assistance for displaced residents. (Co-Counsel with California Rural Legal Assistance.) Although it has been empty for more than a decade, the Morrison is equipped with 111 units of SRO apartments which, in accordance with the Wiggins colony, has an obligation for the relevant group to replace this apartment on an external site. As a result, the developer targeted a property located on 1316-1328 Linwood Avenue in the Municipality of Westlake for the construction of a second 150-unit building, which would represent replacement units 111 Morrison and the remaining five Replacement Units of barclay. Washington v. Mallah; Mayo v. Razor Rent, Alameda County Superior Court (2004). Consolidated group action against the failure of private landlords to repay guarantees to the beneficiaries of Section 8 of rent assistance. The result of an authorized group action to repay interest bonds to class members in accordance with the claim procedure. Rogel v. City of Lynwood, Los Angeles County Superior Court (2006).

Legal action on behalf of mobile-home park tenants in a park threatened by closure by the new owner who wanted to develop the market price of condominiums. The closure of the park and subsequent evictions are contrary to government laws on mobile parks, the city`s residential element, and state rehabilitation and relocation laws.