that the problem of prepayment of HUD-assisted mortgages is increasing and that low-income persons will suffer by the loss of units covered by those mortgages. They are interested in speaking with anyone who has dealt with or is dealing with similar prepayment issues.

Suit Challenging Housing Authority's Admissions Policy Settled

39,412. Brown v. Housing Auth. of Dallas, No. CA3-85-0277-G (N.D. Tex. July 7, 1987). Plaintiff represented by Jonathan Vickery, Joselle Albracht, North Central Texas Legal Services Foundation, 3108 Live Oak St., Dallas, TX 75204, (214) 824-6690. [Here reported: (Accession No. 1010125) 39,412D First Amended Original Complaint (42pp.); 39,412E Plf's Motion for Class Cert. (7pp.); 39,412F Plfs' Memo in Support of Their Motion for Declaration of a Class Action (10pp.); 39,412G Plf's Response to Def's Motion to Dismiss (11pp.); 39,412H Consent Decree (10pp.). Previously reported at 19 CLEARINGHOUSE REV. 528 (Aug./Sept. 1985).]

This class action challenging the Dallas Housing Authority's admission practices for public housing applicants has been settled. Plaintiffs had complained that defendant (1) required individuals seeking public housing to be placed on a registration list before given an opportunity to apply for housing; (2) failed to take applications from all persons interested in public housing; (3) failed to notify, in writing, all applicants of their eligibility or ineligibility for housing, the expected date of occupancy, and their right to appeal a denial of the application; (4) failed to provide handicapped applicants units suitably designed for their handicaps; (5) failed to process individuals who need emergency housing in a timely manner; and (6) maintained excessive vacancies. The parties entered into a consent decree that, among other things, enjoins the housing authority from maintaining a registration list and requires the agency to offer and take applications without delay. Persons remaining on the registration list at the time of the settlement will receive priority in the application process. In addition, the decree specifies in detail the admissions policy and procedure that the housing authority is to follow and includes the types of specific and adequate notice that it must provide applicants. The settlement also requires the housing authority to create a task force to investigate, research, and determine whether there is adequate and accessible public housing for the handicapped. Finally, the consent decree provides that named plaintiffs will receive damages in the form of rent credits and that these credits will not be considered income nor resources available to plaintiffs and will not change or affect their status or eligibility for any state or federal housing or financial assistance program.

Settlement Agreement Permits Evicted Tenant to Reapply for Admission to Federally Subsidized Housing Complex

42,593. Lemuel v. Smith, No. A 86 CA 441 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 14, 1987). Plaintiff represented by Fred Fuchs, Legal Aid Society of Central Texas, 611 E. 6th St., Austin, TX 78701, (512) 476-7244. [Here reported: (Accession No. 1010118)

42,593A Complaint (17pp.); 42,593B Settlement & Release (11pp.).]

A settlement agreement has been reached in this action in which plaintiff alleged that defendant landlords failed to follow federal regulations in evicting her from a federally subsidized, low-income housing complex. Defendants had constructed the housing complex under the Rural Rental Housing Loan Program established by Section 515 of the National Housing Act of 1949, 42 U.S.C. § 1485, to provide rental or cooperative housing for low- and moderate-income families and individuals. In October 1981, plaintiff moved into the housing complex with her three children pursuant to a Section 8 rental subsidy. In June 1986, defendants initiated an eviction action against her for alleged violations of her lease and alleged that she was guilty of hazardous actions to other tenants. Judgment was rendered in defendant's favor, and plaintiff subsequently vacated her apartment. Plaintiff brought this suit, alleging that defendants violated Section 515 regulations in failing to show that her conduct constituted material noncompliance or other good cause for the termination of her tenancy and in failing to provide adequate notice of termination. According to the settlement, defendants have agreed that, if plaintiff reapplies for admission and presents proper documentation of her eligibility for housing, she shall be offered the first available, appropriate bedroom size apartment upon the same terms and conditions offered to tenants at the time of exercising her option, provided that FmHA or any other federal or state regulatory agency does not object to such action and does not direct defendants to deny plaintiff readmission.

DHS Ordered to Resolve Issue of 60- to 90-Day Time Limitation on Emergency Shelter Assistance for the Homeless

39,958. Rodgers v. Gibson, No. A-1968-85T6 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. June 26, 1987). Intervenor represented by John Thurber, Michael Buncher, Department of the Public Advocate, CN 850, Trenton, NJ 08625, (609) 292-1693. [Here reported: (Accession No. 1010102) 39,958D Opinion (12pp.). Previously reported at 21 Clearinghouse Rev. 403 (Aug./Sept. 1987).]

The New Jersey appellate court has remanded five consolidated cases to defendant Department of Human Services (DHS) and continued to stay the orders of termination in this action wherein plaintiff homeless persons challenge the termination of their emergency shelter assistance. Previously, in Rodgers v. Gibson, a representative action whose primary focus is on the shelter problems of the indigent mentally ill homeless, plaintiffs sought to require emergency shelter and other assistance for homeless persons to be provided by city, county, and state defendants. In Patterson v. New Jersey Department of Human Services, Ancrum v. New Jersey Department of Human Services, Davis v. New Jersey Department of Human Services, and Evans v. New Jersey Department of Human Services, plaintiff homeless persons sought to have the 90-day time limitation for emergency shelter assistance declared invalid and to have DHS's decision to deny their applications for continued emergency shelter assistance reversed. Here, the court notes that it is undisputed that plaintiffs in these cases are destitute and their sole financial resource is the flat GA grants they receive. This

Directory of Nonprofit Agencies That Assist Immigrants

The National Center for Immigrants' Rights has published the third edition of its Directory of Nonprofit Agencies That Assist Persons in Immigration Matters. The directory lists organizations that represent aliens in deportation or exclusion proceedings, that provide assistance with visa processing, and that give other assistance such as extensive advice and referrals. Due to the enactment of the new Immigration Reform and Control Act, this edition has been updated to include those agencies processing applications for legalization.

A copy of the directory is available free of charge to legal services programs from the National Center for Immigrants' Rights, 1636 W. 8th St., Suite 215, Los Angeles, CA 90017, (213) 478-2531.

area, has written a letter to HUD's Assistant Secretary of Housing to complain that Commonwealth Mortgage Corporation has failed to comply with HUD's servicing requirements and has thus created a crisis in the FHA mortgage program. Specifically, CLS alleges that Commonwealth has violated 24 C.FR. § 203.508, which requires specific means of making information readily available to borrowers, and that, instead of establishing procedures to avoid foreclosure, its servicing system precipitates foreclosure action. Many individuals have been unable (1) to have payment credited to their account, (2) to have payment disputes resolved expeditiously, (3) to receive individual consultation on their loan accounts, or (4) to have consideration of forbearance agreements without the intervention of advocates. CLS also contends that the Corporation is not staffed with competent servicing personnel located within 200 miles of Philadelphia. In addition, Commonwealth's toll-free telephone service system is not capable of providing the needed information, and it has no effective system for providing information to mortgagors by collect telephone calls. Counsel notes that, to date, HUD has responded with a continuation of an ongoing investigation of Commonwealth.

court applied the same reasoning it did in Maticka v. City of Atlantic City, 216 N.J. Super. 434 (App. Div. 1987), and concludes that the fault standard and the seven-day time limitation are arbitrary and unreasonable and therefore invalid. With respect to the 60- to 90-day time limitation, the court directs DHS to resolve that issue. The court also directs DHS to seek the participation of those governmental and private agencies presently charged with or that have voluntarily undertaken administration of programs designed to alleviate the homelessness problem. The court notes that the regulatory determination that DHS makes will ideally have taken into account the extent and nature of the homeless problem, its causes and long-term solutions, the availability of all other public and private resources, and the means of effectuating a coordinated and comprehensive use of these resources. In continuing the previously ordered stays, the court made one modification, namely, that emergency accommodation does not have to be limited to motel room rental.

Legal Representative of FHA Mortgagors Seeks to Compel Mortgage Corporation to Comply with HUD Servicing Requirements

42,581. Commonwealth Mortgage Corp., In re, (HUD filed June 4, 1987). Mortgagors represented by Arthur Haywood, Community Legal Services, 3638 N. Broad St., Philadelphia, PA 19140, (215) 227-2400. [Here reported: (Accession No. 1010094) 42,581A Letter to HUD-Administrative Complaint (8pp.).]

Community Legal Services (CLS), which represents many individuals who have FHA mortgages in the Philadelphia

IMMIGRATION

INS Required to Provide Legal Services Program with Information Regarding Immigrants Eligible for Legalization

42,573. Florida Rural Legal Servs. v. Department of Justice, No. 87-999-CIV (S.D. Fla. June 11, 1987). Plaintiff represented by Michael Guare, Florida Rural Legal Services, 305 N. Jackson Ave., Bartow, FL 33830, (813) 534-1781. [Here reported: (Accession No. 1010083) 42,573A Complaint (30pp.); 42,573B Memo in Support of Plf's Motion for a TRO (11pp.); 42,573C Defs' Memo in Opp'n to Plf's Motion for a TRO (10pp.); 42,573D Order (6pp.).]

The court has entered a mandatory preliminary injunction requiring the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to provide plaintiff legal services program with the names and last-known addresses of all persons who are potentially eligible as special agricultural workers under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-603, and who were subject to the June 30, 1987, application deadline. Plaintiff filed a request with INS under the Freedom of Information Act seeking to compel the production of records that contained the names and addresses of all individuals subject to expedited deadlines for filing applications for legalization. Plaintiff sought the information in order to provide information to the affected persons concerning the deadlines applicable to them and information regarding how and where they could obtain low-cost assistance in filing their applications for legalization. INS refused to provide plaintiff with any of the information sought, and plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Department of Justice. However, plaintiff never received a reply to this appeal. A representative of INS orally informed plaintiff that it would provide only the names of the individuals because providing the addresses would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. In concluding that plaintiff was entitled to preliminary injunctive relief, the court found that any countervailing

LANDLORD/TENANT

Tenants Allege Individual Debt Collector for Landlords Has Used His Official Court Position to Defraud Tenants

42,598. McCloud v. Sacks, No. 86-3160 (E.D. Pa. filed June 30, 1987). Plaintiffs represented by Geoffry Walsh, Eric Frank, Peter Schneider, George Gould, Community Legal Services, 1324 Locust St., Philadelphia, PA 19107, (215) 893-5306. [Here reported: (Accession No. 1010114) 42,598A Complaint (58pp.); 42,598B Def Jerome Feinberg's Memo in Support of Motion to Dismiss Plfs' Complaint Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (30pp.); 42,598C Memo in Support of the Motion of Def Alfred Sacks to Dismiss the Complaint (36pp.); 42,,598D Plfs' Memo in Opp'n to Motions of Defs Alfred Sacks & Jerome Feinberg to Dismiss the Complaint (95pp.); 42,598E Reply Memo in Support of Motion of Def Alfred Sacks to Dismiss the Complaint (15pp.); 42,598F Plfs' Supp. Memo in Opp'n to Motion of Def Sacks to Dismiss the Complaint (17pp.); 42,598G First Amended Complaint (58pp.); 42,598H Def Jerome Feinberg's Answer to First Amended Complaint & Affirmative Defenses (26pp.); 42,598-I Answer & Affirmative Defenses of Alfred Sacks to First Amended Complaint (22pp.); 42,598J Plfs' Motion for Class Determination (7pp.); 42,598K Plf's Memo in Support of Motion for Class Cert. (18pp.).]

Three residential tenants in Philadelphia bring this class action against an individual debt collector for landlords, who holds an official position as Landlord-Tenant Officer of the city's municipal court, and an individual attorney representing landlords in the municipal court to challenge defendants' debt collection scheme. Plaintiffs allege that the officer, who is not an attorney, contracts with private landlords and realtors to act as their representative in collecting rent, in prosecuting claims for rent, and in bringing possession actions against tenants. He then prepares and serves tenants with a "Municipal Court Notice of Termination of Lease," which includes a demand that tenants pay a "legal fee" in amounts ranging from $50 to $155, even though no court hearing has been held and before any person authorized to practice law has performed work on the matter. An identical notice demands legal fees and an additional charge of $20 for services, although the tenants may not be obligated to pay for their landlords' collection activities. Plaintiffs allege that the termination form creates a false impression upon tenants that legal fees were incurred and that the fees were authorized by the court and the lease. If collection efforts based upon these notices are unsuccessful, defendant prepares court papers, including municipal court landlord and tenant complaints, and files the complaints with the court. These complaints allege that the tenants owe a "termination" charge, which includes the legal fee demanded on the termination notice and the service charge. The officer then directs defendant attorney to appear in court with the complaints. The attorney enters judgment for rent, fees, and possession, and the judgments are entered almost exclusively by default or through agreements entered into with unrepresented tenants on the basis of misrepresentations made by the attorney. The judgments are then returned to the officer for debt collection, and he negotiates payment terms and arranges for evictions. Plaintiffs contend that defendants' practices violate the Racketeer Influenced

and Corrupt Organization Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962 et seq.; the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq.; the state's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law; and the tenants' constitutional rights to due process. They seek monetary damages and declaratory and injunctive relief for themselves and other class members.

Equitable Relief Granted to Tenant Who Did Not Exercise Option to Renew Lease Until 23 Days After Deadline

42,633. Duncan v. G.E.W., Inc., No. 85-1057 (D.C. Ct. App. May 28, 1987). [Here reported: (Accession No. 1010131) 42,633A Opinion (4pp.).]

Affirming the trial court's grant of equitable relief, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals has held that a court of equity may relieve a tenant from the consequences of its failure to give timely notice, as required by the terms of its lease, of its intention to renew the lease. Because of an honest mistake, the tenant in this case had failed to give written notice of its intention to renew its lease until 23 days after the deadline for exercising its option, which was stated in the lease. Based on the particular facts of the case, the appellate court found that equitable relief is warranted from the strict terms of the lease. The court made clear, however, that the real estate community may rest assured that lease options remain enforceable and that as a general rule they will be strictly enforced according to their terms. In so ruling, the court held that equitable relief will not be considered unless the party seeking it can make a strong showing that (1) the failure to give the required notice was the result of an honest mistake and not mere neglect; (2) the delay, if any, in giving notice was slight; (3) the other party did not rely to its detriment on the failure to give the required notice; and (4) enforcement of the strict terms of the option will result in unconscionable hardship.

Class Action Challenges Consumer Credit Reporting Agency's Tenant Screening Practices

42,584. Cisneros v. The U.D. Registry, Inc., No. C645123 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles County, filed June 23, 1987). Plaintiffs represented by David Pallack, Judith Reeves, San Fernando Valley Neighborhood Legal Services, 13327 Van Nuys Blvd., Pacoima, CA 91331, (818) 896-5211; Margaret Stevenson, Paul Lee, Roderick Field, Judith Nishimoto-Aguilera. [Here reported: (Accession No. 1010098) 42,584A Complaint for Damages & Inj. Relief (19pp.); 42,584B Notice of Hearing on Demurrer & Demurrer to Complaint by Def the U.D. Registry, Inc. a California Corporation; Memo in Support Thereof (24pp.); 42,584C Notice of Motion & Motion to Strike of Def U.D. Registry, Inc. (9pp.); 42,584D Notice of Motion & Motion to Strike; Memo of Def Harvey Saltz (4pp.); 42,584E Notice of Hearing on Demurrer & Demurrer to Complaint by Def Harvey Saltz; Memo in Support Thereof (6pp.); 42,584F Plfs' Opp'n to Motion to Strike of Def U.D. Registry, Inc.; Request for Sanctions Against Def and Its Attorney (8pp.); 42,584G Plfs' Opp'n Demurrer of Def Harvey Saltz; Request for Sanctions Against Def & Its Attorney (6pp.); 42,584H Plfs' Federal Statutory & Case Authority in Support of Opp'n to

Demurrers & Motions to Strike of Defs U.D. Registry, Inc. and Harvey Saltz (Law Dep't Policy Manual sec. 105(b)(1)) (2pp.); 42,584-I Plfs' Opp'n to Motion to Strike of Def Harvey Saltz; Request for Sanctions Against Def and Its Attorney (4pp.); 42,584J Plfs' Opp'n to Demurrer of Def U.D. Registry, Inc.; Request for Sanctions Against Def and Its Attorney (53pp.).]

Plaintiff tenants bring this class action against The U.D. Registry (UDR), a consumer credit reporting agency, its owner, and an employee for unlawful business practices and continuing violations of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and similar state statutes. Several practices of UDR are challenged, including (1) UDR's practice of reporting whether a tenant received a fee waiver or was represented by a legal services program; (2) UDR's practice of refusing to allow a tenant to visually inspect his or her records, and its refusal to reveal its street addresses; (3) UDR's refusal to allow consumers to be represented by legal services attorneys in their disputes with UDR; (4) UDR's policy of requiring consumers to sign releases before reinvestigating disputed information; and (5) UDR's policy of providing different information to subscribers than it does to consumers. Plaintiffs also contend UDR violates the FCRA by its failure to maintain accuracy in compiling, reporting, and disclosing information. Finally, plaintiffs assert that the UDR actions violate plaintiffs' constitutional right to privacy. Defendants assert the fifth amendment in refusing to provide documents in response to plaintiff's request to produce. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief; general, special, statutory, and punitive damages; and attorney fees.

Applicants File Claim Against Landlords for
Misuse of Information Supplied by Tenant
Screening Agency

42,572. Swartz v. Gantz Inv. Properties, Inc., No. 638798 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles County, filed Mar. 4, 1987). Plaintiffs represented by David Pallack, San Fernando Valley Neighborhood Legal Services, 13327 Van Nuys Blvd., Pacoima, CA 91331, (818) 896-5211. [Here reported: (Accession No. 1010085) 42,572A Complaint for Damages & Inj. Relief (12pp.).]

Plaintiff applicants have filed a complaint alleging that they were unlawfully denied tenancy in an apartment building owned and operated by defendants, a private investment firm and its officials. Plaintiffs, a single caucasian woman and her child and a single black man, applied for an apartment in defendants' building, submitting a security deposit and a fee for a credit check. They also signed an agreement with defendants that provided that the application was deemed approved by the owner unless plaintiffs were notified otherwise and the deposit returned within five days. Defendants failed to notify plaintiffs or return the deposit within five days, but soon thereafter, without giving a reason, informed plaintiffs that they could not move into the apartment. Plaintiffs assert that defendants misused information from the tenant screening agency, the UD Registry (UDR), to reject their application. One plaintiff had had two eviction actions filed against him in the past, but both were dismissed. Although defendants were informed of the nature of these eviction cases, they refused to sign a lease with plaintiffs. Even after plaintiffs' lawyer contacted UDR to change the record, defendants refused to rent to the couple. Plaintiffs allege that defendants knowingly, intentionally, and willfully (1) breached

the contract between the parties; (2) violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act, which prohibits arbitrary discrimination; (3) violated the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act by failing to advise plaintiffs that they were denied tenancy due to information supplied by UDR; (4) caused plaintiffs extreme physical and emotional distress; and (5) conducted unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices. Plaintiffs seek preliminary and permanent injunctive relief; general, special and punitive damages; and attorney fees.

MIGRANTS

Migrant Workers Denied Employment After Failing Unfair "Ladder Test" Awarded Damages

42,626. Bernett v. Hepburn Orchards, No. JH-84-991 (D. Md. Apr. 14, 1987). Plaintiffs represented by Gregory Schell, Keith Talbot, Susan Compernolle, Edward Tuddenham, Legal Aid Bureau, 111 High St., Salisbury, MD 21801, (301) 546-5511. [Here reported: (Accession No. 1010134) 42,626A Memo Opinion (49pp.).]

The court has held that plaintiff migrant and seasonal agricultural workers, who are domestic workers, are entitled to damages in this action alleging that defendant orchard owner administered a pre-employment ladder test unfairly so as to disqualify plaintiffs from employment at his orchard. Plaintiffs. had alleged that no H-2 Haitian national has ever failed the test, while some 54 to 82 of the 239 U.S. worker applicants in 1983 and 51 of the 151 U.S. worker applicants in 1984 failed it. They argued that defendant used the test as an excuse for not having to hire U.S. workers for economic reasons. Finding that the ladder test was subjectively given and subjectively judged, the court held that the test as administered did not reasonably and fairly test workers for job-related skills. Although the court stated that the test was discriminatorily administered, it held that defendant's principal error was in the effect that the test had on domestic workers. New domestic workers who failed the test were not hired, while new H-2s, whether they passed the test or not, were hired for at least three workdays by the terms of their work contracts. These workers, like the U.S. workers, had only to arrive at the defendant's orchards minimally qualified in order to be deemed to have accepted defendant's offer of employment. Therefore, the court concluded that any minimally qualified worker who applied for work at the orchard in 1983 and 1984 should have been hired for at least the first three days, and thereafter terminated for cause or else paid for at least three quarters of the time that he or she could have worked. The court found that, by not providing these identical terms to both H-2 and U.S. workers, defendant had violated its assurance that it would do so under the job orders made pursuant to 20 C.FR. § 655.202(a). Accordingly, the court awarded plaintiffs damages pursuant to the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1801 et seq. These damages include actual damages (lost wages, as well as travel and lodging costs) that the workers had incurred because they had come to defendant's orchard based