United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued October 20, 2022 Decided February 17, 2023 No. 21-1212 PF SUNSET PLAZA, LLC, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT, RESPONDENT No. 21-1228 PF HOLDINGS, LLC, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT, RESPONDENT 2 On Petitions for Review of Final Orders of the Department of Housing & Urban Development S. Joshua Kahane argued the cause for petitioners. On the briefs was Aubrey B. Greer. Sarah J. Clark, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the briefs were Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, and Abby C. Wright, Attorney. Before: PILLARD and CHILDS, Circuit Judges, and SENTELLE , Senior Circuit Judge. Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge SENTELLE . SENTELLE , Senior Circuit Judge: Petitioners PF Sunset Plaza, LLC (“Sunset Plaza”) and PF Holdings, LLC (“Holdings”) were each assessed monetary penalties by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) for violations of their duty to provide “decent, safe, and sanitary housing” to low-income families under Section 8. 42 U.S.C. § 1437z-1(b)(2); see 24 C.F.R. § 5.703. Petitioners now petition to reverse ALJ decisions dismissing these HUD enforcement actions against them for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See In the Matter of PF Sunset Plaza LLC, Case No. 21-AF-0131-CM-006 (HUD Office of Hearings & Appeals Oct. 7, 2021) (Fernández-Pons, A.L.J.) (order dismissing action against Sunset Plaza); In the Matter of Ralston GA LLC, Case No. 21-JM-0180-CM-007 (HUD Office of Hearings & Appeals Oct. 25, 2021) (Mahoney, C.A.L.J.) 3 (order dismissing action against Holdings). Petitioners oppose the dismissals because they leave the penalties undisturbed. On March 1, 2022, this Court consolidated the two cases for oral argument. For the reasons explained below, we deny both petitions. I. Background These cases present similar factual backgrounds, as both Petitioners are Section 8 housing owners, or alleged identity-of-interest managers, against which HUD assessed penalties for alleged statutory violations. a. Sunset Plaza In the case of Sunset Plaza, HUD inspected Petitioner’s property at Sunset Plaza Apartments in Tulsa, Oklahoma in late 2019. It there found violations of Sunset Plaza’s duty to provide low-income housing in “decent, safe, sanitary and . . . good repair” in ten different units. 24 C.F.R. § 5.703; see also 42 U.S.C. §§ 1437f, 1437z-1(b)(2). The violations also breached Sunset Plaza’s Housing Assistance Payment contract with HUD. HUD subsequently issued a pre-penalty notice to Sunset Plaza in March 2020. It stated that HUD was considering imposing civil money penalties and that Sunset Plaza had thirty days to respond to the accusations within. Sunset Plaza, via counsel, requested several extensions to this deadline in light of the developing COVID-19 pandemic. However, Sunset Plaza failed to respond or to ask for an extension by the last deadline HUD gave of August 2020. Sunset Plaza finally responded to the pre-penalty notice on March 24, 2021. On April 26, 2021, HUD filed a Complaint against Sunset …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals