Archive for category City of Milwaukee

FREE Seminar on Evictions – Saturday, August 14th

Aug 4

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in AASEW, City of Milwaukee, Seminars | 2 Comments

I will be presenting a free seminar on the topic of evictions for the City of Milwaukee’s Landlord Training Program on Saturday, August 14th.  I am presenting this seminar on behalf of the Apartment Association of Southeastern Wisconsin (AASEW). 

The Seminar will run from 9 am – 12 noon and will be held at Alverno College’s Wehr Theater which is located at 3441 S. 39th Street.  I was informed that there is a parking lot located at 40th & Morgan for attendees to use.

I will cover three topics:

1.   Causes for Evictions – I will explain the different types of notices that can be served on a tenant and explain under what circumstances you should use the different notices)

2.   Notices Terminating Tenancy - I will explain what must be included in a proper notice and how to properly serve a notice), and

3.   The Judicial Eviction Process  – I will cover the “nuts and bolts” of what you must do to file an eviction lawsuit and what to expect once you arrive in court).

The attendees will receive copies of my detailed outlines on the above topics plus examples of various forms.

If you are interested in attending the seminar you must register in advance by calling (414) 286-2954 or email jhagne@milwaukee.gov.

Hope to see you there!

Tags: , ,

CITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS LANDLORDS’ LAWSUIT DENIED BY THE COURT – LAWSUIT CONTINUES

Jun 4

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in City of Milwaukee, Mandatory Rental Inspections / Landlord Licensing | 4 Comments

On May 21, 2010, Judge Timothy Wotkowiak, denied the City of Milwaukee’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed by three Milwaukee landlords who sued the city as a result of its newly enacted ordinance requiring mandatory rental inspections of rental housing in two areas of the city.

For background information on the ordinance that went into effect on January 1, 2010, please read my November 24, 2009 post.  For background information on the lawsuit that was filed against the city you can refer to my December 31, 2009 post.  And for information about the city’s motion to dismiss and arguments both for and against the motion I would direct you to my May 4, 2010 post.

As stated in my earlier post, the plaintiff landlords made three key arguments as to why it was not necessary for them to serve the city with a formal Notice of Claim prior to initiating the lawsuit.  Judge Witkowiak agreed with the arguments offerred by the landlords on all three issues.

Issue #1: 

The court indicated that it was not practical to require the landlords to serve the city with a formal Notice of Claim — which would have allowed the city 120 to respond — in part because of the basis of the lawsuit.  The landlords’ lawsuit included the filing of a temporary restraining order to stop an immediate harm (the carrying out of the ordinance) and to make the plaintiffs wait for 120 days before they could even file suit would not be practical or just as the city would have been able to implement what is argued to be an unconstitutional program for at least 120 days before a court could review the issues and concerns with the ordinance.

Issue #2:

The court found that the city did have actual notice of the claim even though a formal notice was not served upon it.  Judge Witkowiak spent considerable time pointing out all of various contacts made by landlords, the Apartment Association of SE Wisconsin (AASEW) , and others which provided the city with actual notice of the concerns with the ordinance.  The court made reference to the letter that the AASEW’s lawyers (who also happen to represent the three plaintiff landlords)sent to City Attorney Grant Langley outlining the many problems with the proposed ordinance.  The court also referred to the letter that I wrote as President of the AASEW to Common Council President Willie Hines and the city’s other alderman, expressing the association’s many concerns with the ordinance.  The aformentioned letters, along with a DVD of the public hearing held before the ZND committee of the Commom Council, were all attached to the plaintiff landlords’ brief in opposition to the city’s motion to dismiss, and appeared to carry great weight with the Court.

Issue #3:

Judge Witkowiak also stated that the city sufferred no prejudice by not having been served with a formal Notice of Claim by the plaintiffs.  The city appeared to argue that it was prejudiced because it had to prepare its legal defense to the lawsuit and that somehow that was to be considered sufficient prejudice to grant the city’s motion.  I have heard a lot of “out there” arguments during my 15 years of law practice, but that was a new one, for me.  The court properly determined that that was not the type of “prejudice” that the city needed to demonstrate in order to prevail on its motion.

As such a result of this decision, the plaintiff landlords’ lawsuit will now move forward and address the actual problems with the ordinance.

A Scheduling Conference has been set for June 15, 2010.  On this date, the court will provide deadlines for the parties to complete various matters that will assist in moving the case forward, such as deadlines to complete discovery (the fact gathering process), deadlines to file dispositive motions (motions that could end the case without the need for a fact-finding trial), and other matters.

Based on the comments of the attorney’s for both the city and the plaintiff landlords it appears that both sides may very well be contemplating the filing of a dispositive motion — such as a summary judgment motion — which would allow the court to decide the lawsuit as a matter of law, without the need for a fact finding trial, because there are no material facts that are in dispute.

I will keep you up to date on the status of the lawsuit as I learn more.

Tags: , ,

Update On Landlords’ Lawsuit Against City of Milwaukee and Its Rental Inspection Ordinance

May 4

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in AASEW, City of Milwaukee, DNS, Mandatory Rental Inspections / Landlord Licensing | No Comments

There has not been a lot of media reporting on the lawsuit brought by three landlords against the City of Milwaukee and its rental inspection ordinance so I thought I would take the time to update you on its status.

If you are unfamiliar with the basics of the lawsuit you should refer to my earlier post on the topic.

The City of Milwaukee has filed a Motion To Dismiss the Landlords’ lawsuit.  Essentially the City is arguing that the lawsuit against it should be dimissed because the City was not provided the proper notice of the landlords’ claims prior to the lawsuit being filed.  In Wisconsin, if a person wants to sue a government entity – which would include the City of Milwaukee — the law states that prior to the lawsuit, the government entity must be served with a Notice of Claim.  The City then has 120 days to review that Notice and either attempt to settle the claim or deny the claim.  If the City does not deny the claim within the 120 days it will be deemed denied anyway.  After the 120 days have passed, a person then has 6 months in which to file the lawsuit.  If more than 6 months passes then the person would be precluded from filing the lawsuit.

The reasoning behind what is called the “Notice of Claim” statute (Sec. 893.80, Wis. Stats.) is allegedly to allow the government an opportunity to settle a claim in order to avoid expensive litigation.  A secondary reason for the requirement is to provide the government with enough information so that it can budget accordingly for settlement or litigation.

As a quick aside: I have sued a government entity on behalf of a client in the past so I am familiar with the Notice of Cliam statute.  In my opinion the government does very little during the 120 days after it is served notice.  The typical reaction is to ignore the claim and not even take the time to deny it but rather to allow the 120 days to pass after which the claim will be automatically denied. In fact, I would even go so far as to say that based on my experience that the government typically ignores the Notice of Claim that is served upon it just to see if the aggrieved person will actually file a lawsuit.  It costs very little to file a Notice of Claim (which often is done without the assistance of an attorney) but it is expensive to file a lawsuit.  The government has little to no interest to pay money to someone unless it knows the individual who filed the claim is serious.  Essentially the Notice of Claim statute is a “legal hoop” that the government makes you jump through to see how high you will jump.  There may little to no reason for you to jump, but nontheless, jump you must.

So the City of Milwaukee is arguing that the plaintiff landlords’ didn’t file the Notice prior to filing the lawsuit and therefore their lawsuit should be dismissed.

In its response brief, the plaintiffs argue that a formal notice of claim need not always be served as there are exceptions to this requirement.  The plaintiff landlords rely on a recent Court of Appeals decision, Kuehne v. Burdette, which held that the Notice of Claim statute does not always require a formal notice of claim to be served nor is it always required for a plaintiff to wait 120 days before filing a lawsuit against the government. 

The plaintiff landlords make three key arguements in their brief in opposition to the City’s motion to dismiss:

1.     Because the City’s Rental Inspection Ordinance became law on January 1, 2010 — just 22 days after it was passed by the Common Council —  and because the nature of the lawsuit is to determine whether or not the ordinance is constitutional, the plaintiffs were unable to comply with the notice of claim statute.

2.     The City had actual notice of the claim even if a formal notice of claim was not served on it.

3.     The City sufferred no prejudice as a result of the plaintiffs filing the lawsuit without first filing a formal notice of claim.

The plaintiffs’ first argument is very similar to the one made in the Kuehne case.  In Kuehne, five residents of a town filed an injunction against the Town of Ledgeview in order to prevent it from holding a referendum on whether or not the town should incorporate.  The court in Kuehne stated that the notice of claim statute probably did not apply in the context of the lawsuit because it is illogical that a town can use lack of notice as a defense when the Town by its own actions made compliance with the notice of claim statute impossible. 

The plaintiff landlords argue that the exact same situation in Kuehne is at play in the lawsuit against the City of Milwaukee.  The City adopted the new ordinance and Mayor Barrett signed it into law 22 days later.  If the plaintiffs had been required to file a notice of claim the City would have been under no legal obligation to respond to the notice until approximately May 1, 2010.  By that time the rental inspection ordinance would have been in effect for a minimum of 4 months without a court being allowed to examine the constitutionality of the ordinance.  The City can’t use the notice of claim defense in order to allow it to move forward with its unconstitutional ordinance.

The plaintiffs’ second argument is that they City had actual notice of the claim because the plaintiffs, through the actions of the AASEW, advised the City of its concerns and objections to the proposed ordinance as eary as October 29, 2009.  On October 29th yours truly sent a letter to the Common Council pointing out the various constitutional problems with the ordinance.  Additionally, the AASEW’s attorney (who is also the attorneyfor the plaintiff landlords) also sent a letter to the City Attorney on the same date setting forth the myriad of problems with the proposed ordinance.  Additionally there were numerous communications between the AASEW, its attorneys, and the alderman that sponsored the ordinance (Nic Kovac) and the DNS Commisioner.  So the City had actual notice of the plaintiffs’ claims approximately two months prior to the filing of the lawsuit.  By contrast, in the Kuehne case the plaintiff gave notice to the Town on the same day as the lawsuit was filed and the Court of Appeals found that notice to have been sufficient.

Finally, the plaintiffs argue that the City was not prejudiced by the lack of a formal notice of claim.  If the purpose of the notice requirement is to allow a government entity time to potentially resolve a claim, the fact that the AASEW 9of which the plaintiffs are members) notified the City of the problems with the ordinance and even met to discuss the potential problems, demonstrates that the City had the opportunity to resolve the issue if it wanted to.  In essence the City is arguing that the plaintiff should be required to jump through the legal hoop for the sake of jumping rather than because the jumping serves an actual purpose.

The City was allowed the opportunity to have the last word so it did file a reply brief to the plaintiffs’ brief in oppostion to the motion to dismiss.

I would point out that even if the City should prevail on its motion to dismiss, all that this will do is cause delay.  A notice of claim has already been filed and served on the City (just in case) and another lawsuit will be filed if needed.  So essentially the City’s motion, if successful, will just delay things rather then address the underlying issue –  whether or not the rental inspection ordinance is constitutional as written.

A hearing on the City’s motion to dismiss is scheduled to be heard before Judge Timothy Witkowiak on May 21, 2010 at 9:30 am in room 412 of the Milwaukee County Courthouse.  The hearing, as most legal proceedings are, is open to the public.  For those of you unable to attend, I will provide you with an update hopefully during the week of June 1st after I have returned from my upcoming wedding and honeymoon.

Tags:

Milwaukee’s New Vacant Building Registration Ordinance Is Here

Jan 28

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in City of Milwaukee, DNS, Legislation | 3 Comments

I need to apologize.  I have spent much of my time these last several months following and providing information about the city of Milwaukee’s new Residential Rental Inspection ordinance and as such I have inadvertantly failed to let everyone know about another of Milwaukee’s new ordinances that will affect rental property owners. 

I was talking with a client of mine last week prior to the 1:30 pm eviction return calandar in small claims court and he mentioned that the city recently served him with notice that he is in violation of the city’s new Vacant Building Registration ordinance.  He was told that his rental property was vacant and that he didn’t register the property with the city as required and that he must now open his property up for an interior inspection by the Department of Neighborhood Services (DNS).  Interesting twist is that my client’s rental property is not vacant nor has it ever been vacant.  The unit is occupied by a tenant under a valid written rental agreement.

On January 1, 2010, Milwaukee’s new Vacant Building Registration ordinance went into effect.  Essentially the ordinance states that the owner of any building that is vacant for more than 30 days must register the property with DNS and submit to a mandatory – warrantless – interior inspection of the rental property.  The ordinance also requires the owner to secure the building, maintanin the lot, exterior of the property, and interior of the property during the time that it is vacant.

Upon first glance this seems like a reasonable ordinance.  A valiant attempt by the city to insure that vacant buildings do not become dilapidated and attract criminal activity, injure individuals, or further depress Milwaukee’s neighborhoods.  I have no problem with that.  Upon closer review of the ordinance however you will note the many requirements – similar to the city’s Residential Rental Certificate ordinance — that are open to multiple interpretations and therfore open to abuse, which in the end, can and most likely will, be used to the detriment of rental property owners.

I will not attempt to explain or detail the entire Vacant Building Registration ordinance as it is over 6 pages long.  I would like to touch on some key parts of the ordinance and note some concerns. 

This new ordinance applies to all residential and commercial properties that have been vacant for more than 30 days.  There are some exceptions.  It does not apply to single family homes or owner-occupied duplexes (as long as the owner has resided in the duplex at least 3 of the last 9 months and the owner intends to continue living in the duplex).  Also excluded from the ordinance are condominiums and  rental units as long as their vacancy rate does not exceed 95%.  Also excluded is property that is currently in the foreclosure process and property that is actively being renovated.

This ordinance will apply to your rental whether or not you are actively showing the property to prospective renters and regardless of the condition of the property.  So within 30 days of the property becoming vacant you must fill out a city application and file it with DNS.  Additionally you must allow DNS to conduct an interior inspection.  If the city finds any violations you will be cited.

Your intial application will be good for a period of 6 months and will cost you nothing (assuming the city does not cite you for any violations).  If your property remains vacant for more than 6 months then you must reapply and pay a $250 fee.  If DNS determines, at the time of renewal, that your property is not compliant then the fee will increase to $500.  If your property continues to be in violation at the time of any subsequent renewals then you may be charged a fee (in increasing increments of $250) up to a maximum of $1,000.  If you don’t pay the fees they will be assessed against the real estate as a “special charge.”

During the inspection, DNS will see if your property meets their minimum requirements.  You can read a summary of those requirements at DNS’ webpage dedicated to this new program.

Just as with the Residential Rental Certificate ordianance, DNS has the unfettered ability to draft and apply rules and regulations which are not required to be incorporated into the ordinance.  These rules and regulations can change at any time and do not have to be published.

Let me just provide you with two situations that clearly fall under the purview of this new ordinance but which I feel should not require any city involvement whatsoever. By no means are these the only two problematice examples that I foresee — there are many.

First, assume that you own a duplex and you currently have a tenant in the lower unit but because the upper tenant just broke the lease you upper unit is empty.  The upper unit is in pretty good shape but requires repainting and some minor repairs to get the unit into move-in condition for the next tenant.  Also assume that you were just assigned a new project at work that is taking up most of your time – you are working late and on weekends.  While you would like to repaint the unit, make the minor repairs, start advertising the vacancy, and showing it to prospective renters, you just do not have the time.  You remain very busy at work for more than 30 days.  Under the new ordinance you now have a “vacant building” and you must register the property and allow it to be inspected.

My second example has actually happened to me on several occassions.  I was in the process of trying to locate a new tenant for the lower portion of my duplex.  Just as the city suggests, I have written screening criteria which any applicant must meet in order to become my tenant.  My screening criteria is quite stringent.  I follow the adage that it is better to have a vacant unit then to accept any “warm body” as a tenant.  Because I also work a full-time job, I am not free to show the property to interested renters every day.  As a result of both my stringent criteria and my schedule, my lower duplex remains vacant for over 30 days.  Under Milwaukee’s new ordinance I would need to register my duplex with the city and take time out of my day to allow an inspector to inspect my property.

NOTE:  I have spoken with DNS Commissioner Art Dahlberg and confirmed that my above examples (which I have crossed out) are inaccurate.  If you have a duplex and only 1 unit is vacant then you do not fall under the purview of the new ordinance.  You would only fall under the purview of the new ordinance if both units of the duplex were vacant for 30 days — as you would now have more than a 95% vacant property.  So I have had to revise my examples.

First, assume that you own a single family home that you operate as a rental property and your tenant just broke his/her lease and as such the property is now vacant.   The property will need a little bit of work (minor repairs and some painting) before you can turn it over.  Also assume that you were just assigned a new project at work that is taking up most of your time – you are working late and on weekends.  While you would like to repaint the unit, make the minor repairs, start advertising the vacancy, and showing it to prospective renters, you just do not have the time.  You remain very busy at work for more than 30 days.  Under the new ordinance you now have a “vacant building” and you must register the property and allow it to be inspected.

My second example happens to many of my clients that have stringent screening criteria that applicants must meet before they can become tenants.  They are in the process of renting out a single family rental unit or both units of a duplex.  Just as the city reccomends they use a written screening criteria which any applicant must meet in order to become a tenant.  Following the adage that I often teach at my seminars, that it is better to have a vacant unit then to accept any “warm body” as a tenant, my clients often have periods in which their rental units are vacant.  Sometimes becasue my clients work a full-time job outside of being a landlord, they not free to show the property to interested renters every day.  As a result of both their stringent screening criteria and their busy schedules, their single famuly rental or both units of their duplex remain vacant for over 30 days.  Under Milwaukee’s new ordinance they would need to register their rentals with the city and take time out of my day to allow an inspector to inspect their property.

I suppose things could be worse.  You could be standing in my client’s shoes – the guy I mentioned earlier — and have just been served with a notice from the city that you are in violation of its Vacant Building Recording ordinance.  My client is now placed in the difficult position of having to decide whether to ignore the city’s notice and risk the possibility of a fine and the future wrath of DNS or capitulating to the city and allowing it to inspect his unit despite the fact that it is occupied by a tenant and the city has no legal right to set foot in his rental property.  What would you do?

Tags: , ,

City of Milwaukee’s Rental Rehab Program Offers Investors Funds to Rehabilitate Foreclosed Properties

Jan 20

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in City of Milwaukee, Investing In Rental Property | 6 Comments

In an effort to rid itself of the many abandoned and foreclosed properties throughout the city, Milwaukee’s Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) Rental Rehab Program will provide investors and landlords with financial assistance to rehabilitate foreclosed homes.

According to the flyer that I was given, responsible investor owners and landlords who purchase foreclosed homes in the city of Milwaukee may be eligible for forgivable loans of up to $17,500 per unit (or $35,00 for a duplex) to assist them with repairs to the property.  The funds are made available on a matching funds basis.

The city will be holding an informational seminar on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 from 3:30 – 4:30 pm at the Department of City Development located at 809 N. Broadway in the 1st floor boardroom.

The seminar will provide attendees with additional details as to the program requirements and rehabilitation specifications.

It is requested that all attendees pre-register by sending an email to NSPinfo@Milwaukee.gov. 

Additional information on the program can be found at the www.MilwaukeeHousingHelp.org

Tags:

City of Milwaukee Releases Its 2010 Schedule of Special Sessions for The Landlord Training Program

Jan 10

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in City of Milwaukee, Seminars | 1 Comment

The City of Milwaukee has just released its 2010 Schedule of Special Sessions for The Landlord Training Program.  The focus of these 5 special seminars will be on learning how to effectively and professionally manage your rental properties.  All of the sessions will take place on Saturday mornings to allow those of you who work an additional job (aside from being a landlord) to attend.

I am very honored to have been asked, as president of the Apartment Association of SE Wisconsin, to present one of these special sessions on Saturday, August 14, 2010.  The topic that I will be addressing is the Judicial Eviction Process.  The seminar will run from 9 am – 12 pm at Alverno College’s Wehr Theater which is located at 3441 S. 39th Street.

Other special sessions in the 2010 program include:

February 6, 2010:     (1) The District Attorney’s new diversion program for tenant’s who “bounce” their rent checks  - presented by A.D.A. Ron Dague, and  (2) The EPA’s new renovation rules regarding lead-based paint which will become effective later this year – taught by Ada Duffey of Milwaukee Lead/Asbestos Information Center, Inc.

April 24, 2010:     Screening Tenants and how using a good tenant screening company can assist you during the very important screening process - presented by Kathy Huens of Landlord Services, LLC

June 12, 2010:     Fair Housing Practices – Know Your Local, State and Federal Laws – presented by Margaret Bowitz of the Milwaukee Metro Fair Housing Council

October 2, 2010:    Fire and Building Codes – presented by Deputy Fire Chief Michael Payne and Department of Neighborhood Services Commissioner Art Dahlberg

All sessions are free of charge but ADVANCED REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED.  To register call (414) 286-2934 or email jhagne@milwaukee.gov

Tags: ,

Landlords Sue City of Milwaukee To Stop Residential Rental Certificate Ordinance

Dec 31

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in City of Milwaukee, Legislation, Mandatory Rental Inspections / Landlord Licensing | 1 Comment

On December 29, 2009, three landlords filed a lawsuit against the city of Milwaukee in an attempt to stop the new Residential Rental Certificate Ordinance that was recently passed. 

The lawsuit includes a complaint, motion for temporary injunction, ex parte motion for temporary restraining order (TRO) and supporting affidavits.  Essentially, the plaintiffs are arguing that the ordinance as written is (1) unconstitutionally vague, (2) contains fatal defects, (3) fails to provide for an impartial review and (4)interferes with their constitutional right to contract with their tenants.

I would suggest that you read the entire lawsuit but I will attempt to summarize the plaintiffs’ main arguments.

1.    1st claim: The ordinance is unconstitutionally vague

The plaintiffs’ argue that the ordinance contains terms and phrases that are so vague that they do not properly notify landlords owning rental properties in the two designated areas as to what specific conditions will result in a denial of a residential rental certificate or the revocation of a certificate.  The ordinance gives the DNS Commissioner and his inspectors the subjective power to determine whether the conditions in a rental unit constitute a denial or revocation of the certificate.  This subjective power will result in a non-uniform application of the ordinance.

The plaintiffs cite 7 examples within the ordinance where the landlord does not have sufficient notice as to what specific conditions or number of conditions will trigger a denial or revocation of a rental certificate by the city.

2.     2nd claim:  The ordinance contains fatal defects

Basically this argument states that the ordinance as written contains terms which are unclear, have no definition, and fail to set forth clear standards for which a rental certificate will be granted.  Additionally it is argued that the ordinance gives the DNS Commissioner and his inspectors the arbitrary power to grant, deny or revoke a rental certificate without providing specific standards as to how that discretion should be used.

The plaintiffs provide 9 examples within the ordinance where significant terms are not defined or are unclear.  Essentially their argument is that the standard as to what will casue the issuance of a rental certificate is a subjective standard contained only in the minds of the Commissioner and his inspectors (and essentailly that the subjective standard will most likely vary from one inspector to the next).  This argument also focuses on the fact that the ordinance allows for the DNS Commissioenr to draft rules or regulations  which have not been made a part of the ordinance.  This means that the Commissioner could change the rules at any time and without providing owners prior notice of the changes.  The rules and regulations are not required to be made publicly available since they are not contained in the ordinance itself.

3.     3rd claim:  Failure to provide impartial review

Under the ordinance as written if a landlord does not agree with the decision rendered by the city inspector, the landlord can appeal that decision to the Commissioner of DNS — the employer of the inspector that made the intial decision.  The plaintiffs argue that as written the ordinance allows the individual and agency that made the unwritten rules for inspection and then subjectively applied those rules, to also act as the decision-maker for the review of any contested determination.  Wisconsin Statutes Sec. 68.11(2) require that all municipalities provide an “imparital decision-maker . . . who did not participate in making or reviewing the initial determination” to preside over any review.

4.     4th claim: Interference with the constitutional right to contract

According to the ordinance, all rental units within the two designated areas will be required to have a rental certificate in place (if there is a tenant residing in the unit) as of January 1st, 2010 — Friday.  If no certificate is in place by 1/1/10 then the owner of the rental will be in violation of the ordinance as written.  The argument made by the plaintiffs is that since the ordinance does not provide for the rental certificates to be issued until after an inspection takes place (which will be at least 30 days after 1/1/10) that landlords will be forced to terminate the tenancies of their tenants or else be in violation of the ordinance.  By being forced to issue a termination notice to their tenants, the plaintiffs argue that the city isinterfering with the landlords and tenants rental agreement – and by doing so they are interfering with a landlords right to enter into a contract with his/her tenant.

The plaintiffs are asking that the court to temporarily enjoin the city from enforcing the residentail rental certificate ordinance.  They are also asking the court to issue an order declaring that the ordinance is invalid.  Finally the plaintiffs are asking the court to permanatly enjoin the city from enforcing the ordinance.

This lawsuit has been tabbed to Judge Timothy Witkowiak.

A hearing on the plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order was held earlier today before Judge Timothy Dugan.  Judge Dugan denied the landlords’ motion for a TRO without reaching the underlying problems with the ordinance.  One of the requirements in order to be granted a TRO is that some “irreperable harm” must be demonstrated.  Judge Dugan felt that becasue no landlord has been issued a citation by the city and because the city has not tried to remove any tenant from the plaintiff’s’ rental units, as of yet, that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate any irreperable harm.”

Tags: ,