Here are the materials in the consolidated matters captioned Tlingit-Haida Regional Housing Authority v. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (D. Colo.):
115 HUD Motion for Restitution
120 Housing Authority Opposition
124 DCT Order
When asked at the hearing why the payments of the judgments were made during the appeal process, counsel for HUD said, “I think they thought it was, you know, the equitable thing to do.” He was right. The equitable thing for the Court to do now is to deny the motion for restitution.
Prior posts here.
Here are materials in Tlingit-Haida Regional Housing Authority v. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (D. Colo.):
74 DCT Order on Liability
85 DCT Order on Damages
On March 4, 2008, Plaintiff Tlingit–Haida Regional Housing Authority (“Tlingit–Haida” or “the Tribe”) filed this action for judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., claiming that the Defendants (collectively “HUD”) violated the Native American Housing Assistance and Self–Determination Act of 1996 (“NAHASDA”), 25 U.S.C. § 4101 et seq., by reducing the number housing units counted as Formula Current Assisted Stock (“FCAS”) for the calculation of the Tribe’s share of the annual Indian Housing Block Grant (“IHBG”) and recapturing IHBG funds which the Tribe had received in past years for those units. Tlingit–Haida filed an amended complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief on June 17, 2010, requesting various and alternative forms of relief, including the disgorgement of recaptured funds.
FURTHER ORDERED that final judgment shall enter requiring the Defendants to restore to Plaintiff Tlingit–Haida Regional Housing Authority the amount of $1,139,658, for Indian Housing Block Grant funds that were illegally recaptured from the Plaintiff for fiscal years 1998 through 2002. Any such restoration shall be in addition to the full IHBG allocation that would otherwise be due to the Plaintiff under the Native American Housing Assistance and Self–Determination Act (“NAHASDA”) in a given fiscal year as calculated without application of the amount of the Judgment; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall make restoration of the IHBG funds from all available sources, including, but not limited to the funds set aside for Plaintiff’s benefit by stipulation of the parties on March 6, 2008 and ordered by this court in an Order entered on March 18, 2008 in the amount of $1,499,887[.]