Volis v. Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles CA2/5

Filed 10/8/15 Volis v. Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

RICHARD J. VOLIS, B262248

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BS149294) v.

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of California. Robert H. O’Brien, Judge. Affirmed. Richard J. Volis, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Joseph L. Stark & Associates, Joseph L. Stark, for Defendant and Respondent.

Appellant Richard J. Volis (Volis) sought a writ of mandate ordering respondent Housing Authority of Los Angeles (the Housing Authority) to set aside its final decision approving a rent increase sought by the landlord of Volis’s “Section 8” apartment. The trial court denied his administrative mandamus writ petition, finding it was moot. Volis, appearing in propria persona, raises assorted claims of error. We reject his claims and affirm because the limited appellate record before us provides no basis to question the trial court’s judgment.

BACKGROUND The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds a Housing Choice Voucher program, which state or local public housing agencies administer. The program allows senior citizens, individuals with low incomes, and those with disabilities to select privately owned rental units. Assuming the housing agency approves the tenancy, the housing agency contracts with the property owner to make rent subsidy payments on behalf of the program participants. (24 C.F.R. § 982.1.) These rent subsidy vouchers are often referred to as “Section 8” benefits, based on the section of the United States Housing Act of 1937 under which they are authorized. (42 U.S.C. § 1437f; 24 C.F.R. § 982.2.) Program regulations do not permit housing agencies to approve a tenancy unless the rent is reasonable, and the regulations also provide that any proposed rent increases for units occupied by program participants must be reviewed and approved by the relevant state or local housing agency. (24 C.F.R. §§ 982.1(a)(2), 982.308 (g)(4) [rent increases subject to reasonableness requirement], 507(a)-(b) [housing agency must determine the reasonable rent for the unit compared to other unassisted units in the area].) Volis is a single man and under HUD guidelines he was approved for a one- bedroom Section 8 housing assistance voucher. Volis, however, selected a two-bedroom apartment in Sylmar, California where the rental payment was initially $1,177 per month. The Housing Authority approved the tenancy with Volis paying $239 of that amount and the Housing Authority paying $938, the amount of the one-bedroom voucher for which