Amanda Williams VS Housing Authority of the City of Slidell
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBUCATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO. 2015 CA 0624 AMANDA WILLIAMS VERSUS HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CTIY OF SLIDELL Judgment rendered November 9, 2015. Appealed from the 22nd Judicial District Court in and for the Parish of St. Tammany, Louisiana Trial Court No. 2014-14939 Honorable Martin E. Coady, Judge A1TORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE AMANDA WILUAMS JOANNE RINARDO ATIORNEY FOR NEW ORLEANS, LA DEFENDANT-APPELLANT HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CTTY OF SLIDELL BEFORE: PETIIGREW, HIGGINBOTHAM, AND CRAIN, JJ. PETIIGREW, J. This appeal challenges the trial court's grant of a preliminary injunction in favor of plaintiff, Amanda Williams, and against defendant, Housing Authority of the City of Slidell Housing Authority"), after the Housing Authority terminated the benefits Ms. Williams had previously been receiving under the Housing Choice Voucher Program, Section 8 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937, 42 u.s'.c. § 1437(f). The trial court ruled that even if Ms. Williams had violated her obligations under the Housing Choice Voucher Program, the Housing Authority had discretion to impose a penalty less severe than termination. Thus, the trial court granted the preliminary injunction as prayed for and ordered that Ms. Williams be allowed to continue participation in the Housing Choice Voucher Program until further order of the court. The Housing Authority filed this appeal, asserting that the trial court erred in: ( 1) rejecting the Housing Authority's findings of fact; ( 2) mandating which mitigating factors the Housing Authority had to consider when ruling on Ms, Williams' appeal to the trial court; ( 3) ruling that the Housing Authority should not have terminated Ms. Williams even if she had violated her family obligations under the Housing Choice Voucher Program; and 4) finding that the Housing Authority had not made a finding of fraud and that such a finding was needed to terminate Ms. Williams' assistance. A preliminary injunction is an interlocutory procedural device designed to preserve the status quo between the parties, pending a trial on the merits. Acadian Ambulance Service, Inc. v. Parish of East Baton Rouge, 97-2119, p. 7 (La. App. 1 Cir. 11/6/98), 722 So.2d 317, 322, writ denied, 98-2995 ( La. 12/9/98), 729 So.2d 583. Generally, plaintiffs seeking issuance of a preliminary injunction bear the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence a prima facie showing that they will prevail on the merits and that irreparable injury or loss will result without the preliminary injunction. La. Code Civ. P. art. 3601; Tobin v. Jindal, 2011-0838, p. 4 La. App. 1 Cir. 2/10/12), 91 So.3d 317, 320. However, a threat of irreparable injury need not be shown when the deprivation of a constitutional right is at issue or when the act sought to be enjoined is unlawful. See Piazza's Seafood World, LLC v. Odom, 2 2007-2191, p. 10 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 12/23/08), 6 So.3d 820, 826; Acadian Ambulance, 97-2119 at 8, 722 So.2d at 322. Although the judgment on the preliminary injunction is interlocutory, a party aggrieved by a judgment either granting or denying a preliminary injunction is entitled to an appeal. La. Code Civ. P. art. 3612(8);. Piazza's Seafood, 2007-2191 at 9, 6 So.3d at 826. We are, however, mindful that appellate review of a trial court's issuance of a preliminary injunction is limited. The issuance of a preliminary injunction addresses itself to the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on review unless a clear abuse of discretion has been shown. Concerned Citizens for Proper Planning, LLC v. Parish of Tangipahoa, 2004-0270, p. 5 (La. App. 1 Cir. 3/24/05), 906 So.2d 660, 663. Following a thorough review of the record and relevant jurisprudence, we find that the trial court acted within its sound discretion in granting the preliminary injunction in this case. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. In so doing, we attach and adopt the opinion of the trial court, which correctly and succinctly sets forth the facts of this case. Appeal costs in the amount of $877.45 are assessed against appellant, Housing Authority of the City of Slidell. AFFIRMED. 3 AMANDA WILLIAMS NUMBER: 2014-14939 DIVISION:F 22No JUDICIAL VERSUS DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF ST. TAivlMANY HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF SLIDELL adi 1J, dVf5: WRIITEN REASONS FO Injunction" brought This matter came before the Court on a "Rule for a Preliminary by plainti~ Amanda Williams (" Wtlliams"), requeStmg that the defendant, the Housing the plaintiff's Section 8 Authority of the City of Slidell, be enjoined from terminating heard the matter on January 28, Housing Choice Voucher Program assistance. The Court in favor of plaintiff. 2015 and granted the Preliminary Injunction in open court The defendant filed a ''Request for Written Reasons for Judgment." Program pursuant to Plaintiff was participating in the Housing Choice Voucher S.C.,section1437( t). The S~ tion8 of the U.S. HousingActof1937 ("HousingAct"), 42U. On August 13, 2014, the Housing Authority ofthe City of Slidell administers this program. Authority was proposing to defendant sent Williams a letter notifying her that the Housing terminate her Section 8 HCVP voucher based on allegations that she violated her obligations income within ten days, under the program, mQ~ particu~arly: failing to report her household and misrepresenting the student status information ofher children. at Walmart in In her verified petition, Williams asserts that she began employment June 2014. to the Housing Within a week of beginning employment, Williams went spoke with a lady .named Ms. Authority to report her new income. Williams alleges that she before Butler, who advised Williams that she needed at least two paychecks she could report annual contract with the Housing her income. Then on July 15, 2014, Williams signed her went back to the Housing i Authority renewing her participation · n the program. Williams Authority one week later on July 22 and provided check stubs to the defendant showing she in a letter :from the was employed at Wal-Mart since June 1, 2014. This was even confirmed informed her Housing Authority to Williams dated September 25, 2015 when she was voucher was being terminated. proposed An informal hearing was held on September 15, 2014 to discuss the upheld the termination ofWilliams' Section 8 Housing Voucher Program. The defendant on the fact that termination on September 25, 2014 due to "alleged unreported income" based when she renewed she did not report her employment at Wal-Mart beginning June 1, 2012 stubs to defendant her housing contract, but as noted above, Williams did provide her check a week after she signed her renewal. The defendant dropped the claim that Williams Authority misrepresented the student status information ofher children. Further, the Housing defendant. : did not make an finding of fraud, or that Wtlliams intended to deceive mother offour minor As set forth by Williams in her verified petition, she is a single assistance at children who live with her. She is unable to afford her rent without the rental will face issue. According to the verified petition, Williams asserts that she and her children on thls issue has eviction if her Section 8 housing assistance is terminated. Jurisprudence held that eviction ofan indigent tenant from public or subsidized housing has repeatedly been Mortimer found to present irreparable injury. Park.Yilla,ge Apartment Tenants Associationy. Williams has Howard Trust, 636 F. 3d 1150, 1159 ( 9lh Cir. 2011 ). The Court finds that Preliminary established byprimafacie evidence that she will suffer irreparable injury if the Injunction is not granted. merits ofthe Further, Williams has made a showing that she will likely prevail on the under tfie HCV case. The regulations governing the procedure for terminating assistance under the Program lists William's alleged violation as a violation that is classified discretionary" cases, the PHA may consider all discretionary" category ofthe statute. In " of relevant circumstances such as the seriousness of the case, the extent of participation of a family individual family members, mitigating circumstances related to the disability members who member, and the effects ofdenial or termination ofassistance on other family children would were not involved in the action or failure. As noted, Williams' four minor be affected by the decision to terminate Williams' housing voucher. Further, the law also provides that the Housing Authority has the discretion to impose a penalty less severe than termination, even if the participant violated the HCV Program obligations. The Court finds that even ifWillliams violated her obligations under the PHA by failing to provide accurate information regarding her household income, the decision to terminate her assistance is disproportionate to the offense. As noted, Williams provided her employment information one week after she signed her renewal contract. Accordingly, the Court finds that a Preliminary Injunction should be granted in this matter allowing Williams to continue to participate under Section S's HCV program until further order ofthe Court. Covington, Louisiana, this I'} day ofMarch, 2015.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.