Opinion
No. C 07-05794 MHP.
February 28, 2008
ORDER Re: Request for Briefing on Whether Plaintiffs Have a Private Right of Action under 42 U.S.C. § 1437p
Plaintiffs filed this action in the Superior Court of Alameda County on October 15, 2007. They alleged causes of action for violations of Section 18 of the United States Housing Act ( 42 U.S.C. § 1437p) and its implementing regulations (24 C.F.R. §§ 970 et seq.), as well as for violations of the California Relocation Assistance Act (Cal. Govt. Code §§ 7260 et seq.) and related state regulations (25 C.C.R. §§ 6000 et seq.). Defendants removed this action to federal court on November 14, 2007, stating that this court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1331 because the action alleges that defendants have violated the federal United States Housing Act. Moreover, defendants stated that under 28 U.S.C. section 1367(a), this court has supplemental jurisdiction over the related state law claim for violations of the California Relocation Assistance Act. Plaintiffs did not oppose defendants' removal.
The court, however, is concerned that questions remain as to whether plaintiffs have a private right of action for violations of 42 U.S.C. section 1437p, and in turn, whether the court may maintain jurisdiction over this action. See e.g., Anderson v. Jackson, 2007 WL 458232 (E.D. La. 2007); Givens v. Butler Metropolitan Housing Authority, 2006 WL 3759702 (S.D. Ohio 2006);English Woods Civic Association v. Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority, 2004 WL 3019505 (S.D. Ohio 2004); Edwards v. District of Columbia, 821 F.2d 651 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
Accordingly, the court requests additional briefing on the issue of whether plaintiffs have a private right of action for defendants' violations of 42 U.S.C. section 1437p. Briefing shall occur simultaneously. Parties shall have twenty days from the date of this order to submit their respective briefs which are not to exceed twenty-five pages. No oppositions or replies shall be filed. Oral argument on this issue is scheduled for Monday, March 31, 2008 at 2:00, at which point, the parties will also return for a case management conference. The March 3, 2008 case management conference and hearing on plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction is vacated, as is the March 31, 2008 hearing on defendants' motion for summary judgment. The joint case management conference statement submitted by the parties on February 25, 2008 will suffice for the conference to be held on March 31, 2008, and therefore, no further statement is necessary at this time.