The day the Los Angeles City Council passed a resolution that allowed a landlord to evict 88-year-old Albert Dunne from his Venice apartment, the World War II veteran was not in council chambers. Nor were his attorneys or supporters.
The resolution passed with no debate -- a fact that is now the subject of a lawsuit filed by the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, which accuses the city of failing to notify Dunne of the vote and violating his rights to due process under the 14th Amendment.
The suit asks the court to void the resolution.
"If the Dunnes had known about any meeting or hearing, they would have testified and presented evidence disputing [the owner's] allegations," the lawsuit alleges.
The lawsuit is the latest chapter in a tangled and contentious debate over the property Dunne has occupied for 47 years. On one side is property owner Todd Flournoy, 33, who wants to rehabilitate the four-unit building on Rose Avenue and needs it to be empty to do so. On the other side are Dunne and his daughter Karen, who say they cannot afford to move.
The City Council sat in the middle, forced to determine the fate of the rent-controlled building and that of Flournoy and Dunne. The council sided with Flournoy, but the process has both sides crying foul.
Last month a judge issued a preliminary injunction stopping the eviction until the case has been heard, leaving one man's home and another man's business in limbo. An attorney representing the city declined to discuss the case, citing the city's policy of not commenting on pending litigation.
The case is rooted in the city's attempt to resolve a problem that had affected tenants in rent-controlled apartments citywide.
A clause of the rent stabilization ordinance allowed landlords to evict tenants whenever $10,000 worth of work requiring city permits was done, and when the work required the unit to be empty for at least 45 days. Critics said landlords used the clause as a pretext to evict low-paying tenants and raise rents.
On July 16, 2002, the City Council approved a six-month moratorium on such evictions while the council studied the issue. The measure, which was extended and remains on the books, allows the council to approve some evictions if the owner demonstrates that prohibiting evictions would cause hardship.
