Filed 1/7/22 Limpin v. San Diego Housing Commission CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). Thi s opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA KARL T. LIMPIN, D078562 Plaintiff and Appellant, v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2012- SAN DIEGO HOUSING 00097925-CU-WM-CTL) COMMISSION, Defendant and Respondent. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Ronald L. Styn, Judge. Affirmed. Karl T. Limpin, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Christensen & Spath, Charles B. Christensen and Joel B. Mason for Defendant and Respondent. In 2012, Karl T. Limpin filed a petition for writ of administrative mandate (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5)1 in the trial court challenging the decision by the San Diego Housing Commission (Commission) to terminate 1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. Limpin’s eligibility for federally subsidized housing. In 2014, after more than one year of inactivity in the case, the trial court dismissed Limpin’s petition. More than six years later, in 2020, Limpin filed a motion to reopen the case based on purportedly newly discovered evidence. The trial court denied the motion, finding Limpin’s claimed new evidence was not material, and concluding the case was untimely under the statutes requiring civil actions be brought to trial within five years of filing. (§§ 583.310, 583.360.) The court entered a judgment of dismissal. Limpin moved for reconsideration, and the trial court denied the motion. Limpin contends the trial court erred by refusing to reopen his case. For reasons we will explain, we disagree and affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Underlying Administrative Proceeding In 2005, Limpin began participating in the federal Section 8 subsidized housing program, which the Commission administers locally. In October 2011, the Commission served Limpin with notice that it intended to terminate his Section 8 eligibility based on (among other things) reports from his landlord that Limpin had generated repeated noise complaints from neighbors that required police action, and that he had an unauthorized person living in his unit. Limpin belatedly requested a hearing from the Commission, explaining he had “good cause” for his delay inasmuch as he “was placed in immigration custody on Sept[ember] 18, 2011 for [four and one-half] months and could not respond to the [Commission’s] notice” any sooner. The Commission granted Limpin’s request. At the April 11, 2012 hearing, a Commission employee testified and submitted 26 supporting exhibits. The testimony and exhibits showed 2 Limpin had generated several noise complaints from neighbors. The employee testified she met with Limpin on August 11, 2011 to discuss the complaints and Section 8 eligibility rules. That same day, the employee spoke with the landlord’s property manager, who reported that although “the situation has improved, . . . complaints …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals