California Code of Regulations|§ 8 - Reconstruction, Alterations or Additions Not in Excess of $20,000 in Cost

Contrary to Defendants assertion, Sabi did not turn on a question of whether a state or local government could require a landlord to accept a Section 8 voucher, rather the question was whether the Legislature intended FEHA to include Section 8 assistance in its definition of source of income for purposes of the statute. The Court finds Sabi irrelevant to the question of whether municipalities such as Plaintiff can require a landlord to accept a Section 8 housing voucher.

Petitioner now moves for the Court to set aside its May 15, 2017 judgment and enter a new judgment granting the petition and awarding petitioner the amount of $13,258, which Petitioner asserts is the amount of Section 8 rental assistance she would have received had her Section 8 benefits not been wrongfully terminated by Respondents. Code Civ.

Petitioner’s second cause of action alleges, on information and belief, HACLA “has a policy of terminating Section 8 recipients for inaccurately reporting their marital status when the inaccurate report has no effect on the recipient’s eligibility or amount of Section 8 benefits” and a “policy of finding fraud when a Section 8 recipient simply inaccurately reports his or her marital status, regardless of whether the inaccurate report has any effect on” eligibility or amount of benefits. (Pet. ¶¶ 23, 24.)