Complaint, Farhoud v. Brown, No. 3:20-cv-02226-JR (D. Ore. Dec. 21, 2020)

Case 3:20-cv-02226-JR Document 1 Filed 12/21/20 Page 1 of 19
JOHN DILORENZO, JR., OSB #802040

johndilorenzo@dwt.com
AARON K. STUCKEY, OSB #954322
aaronstuckey@dwt.com
EVAN CHRISTOPHER, OSB #183214
evanchristopher@dwt.com
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
1300 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2400
Portland, Oregon 97201
Telephone: (503) 241-2300
Facsimile: (503) 778-5299
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
MOE FARHOUD, STARK FIRS LIMITED

PARTNERSHIP, ALDER VILLAGE, INC.,
STAR KREST, INC., ASH STREET Case No.
COURTYARD LLC, TYLER SHERMAN,
and CRYSTAL SHERMAN, COMPLAINT
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
GOVERNOR KATE BROWN, in her official

capacity; STATE OF OREGON; CITY OF
PORTLAND, an Oregon municipal
corporation; and MULTNOMAH COUNTY
OF OREGON, and Oregon municipal
corporation,
DEFENDANTS.
Plaintiffs Moe Farhoud; Stark Firs Limited Partnership; Alder Village, Inc.; Star Krest,
Inc.; Ash Street Courtyard LLC; Tyler Sherman; and Crystal Sherman, by and through their
undersigned attorneys, hereby allege as follows.

Page 1 – COMPLAINT 1300 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 2400
Portland, Oregon 97201-5610
4851-2635-5922v.13 0050033-004947
(503) 241-2300 main  (503) 778-5299 fax
INTRODUCTION
1.
This civil rights action challenges several provisions of law, including state statutes,
executive orders, and municipal ordinances that, taken together, significantly impair Plaintiffs’
rental contracts and amount to per se takings and unreasonable seizures of Plaintiffs’ property for
a public purpose without just compensation.
2.
The provisions in question include 2020 House Bill 4213 (“HB 4213”); 2020 House Bill
4401 (“HB 4401”); Executive Orders 20-13 and 20-56; Multnomah County Ordinance Nos.
1282, 1284, and 1287; Multnomah County Resolution No. 2020-110; and City of Portland
Ordinance Nos. 189890 and 190156 (collectively, the “Eviction Moratoria”). The Eviction
Moratoria have the effect of:
a. Preventing Plaintiffs from terminating any tenancy for non-payment of rent, late
charges, utility charges, and certain other service charges or fees, otherwise owing
under their rental agreements with tenants;
b. Preventing Plaintiffs from exercising their contractual rights to exclude
individuals from their properties and take possession of Plaintiffs’ units pursuant
to Plaintiffs’ rental agreements;

c. Preventing Plaintiffs from charging late fees, penalties, or any other amount
reflecting the time value of rent that was not paid in a timely fashion;
d. Preventing Plaintiffs from pursuing judgments for past-due rent absent any effect
on tenants’ possession;
e. Preventing Plaintiffs, once tenants do eventually begin to pay rent, from applying
those rent payments to the unpaid rental balance;
f. Preventing Plaintiffs from collecting unpaid rent until six months after the end of
the declared emergency, whenever that time may be;

4851-2635-5922v.13 0050033-004947
(503) 241-2300 main  (503) 778-5299 fax
g. Preventing Plaintiffs from availing themselves of debt collection services by
preventing Plaintiffs from reporting past due accounts to collection agencies.
h. In many cases, preventing Plaintiffs from ever receiving amounts due under their
rental agreements.
3.
The Eviction Moratoria are unconstitutional in several respects. First, the Eviction
Moratoria impair the obligations of Plaintiffs’ rental agreements by removing the most important
methods of enforcement of which Plaintiffs may avail themselves under their rental agreements:
penalties for late payments and termination of the tenancy. Absent those enforcement terms,
Plaintiffs have no effective means of ensuring that their rental properties continue to generate
revenue rather than to merely incur costs. The Eviction Moratoria even eliminate Plaintiffs’
rights to seek money judgments piecemeal, month-to-month as sums become due. Plaintiffs are
forever deprived of the late fees and penalties for nonpayment that represent the time value of the
unpaid money; they can never sue to recover those sums. Plaintiffs are also forbidden from
reporting past-due amounts to credit agencies, so they are unable to avail themselves of existing
collections procedures for any money judgment they do obtain. Moreover, even with regard to
the rent and other expenses Plaintiffs could, eventually, sue to recover, the practical reality is that
the tenants who cannot afford to pay one month’s rent now will be highly unlikely to afford the
total past-due rent that will continue to accumulate each month until the State declares the “end”
of the statewide emergency. Plaintiffs’ “right” to unpaid rent is little more than an illusion. As a
result, Plaintiffs are being legally compelled to provide, for some indeterminate amount of time
that has already stretched beyond 18 months, housing, utilities, and other services associated
with habitability for large numbers of this state’s population—and Plaintiffs will likely bear the
cost of this state-run public benefit program entirely on their own. Thus, the Eviction Moratoria
are unconstitutional in a second respect because they constitute a taking of Plaintiffs’ property
for a public purpose without just compensation by eliminating Plaintiffs’ rights to occupy, use,
transfer, or exclude others from their properties. Finally, because the above interference with
4851-2635-5922v.13 0050033-004947
(503) 241-2300 main  (503) 778-5299 fax
Plaintiffs’ properties constitutes a use of Plaintiffs’ properties for Defendants’ own purposes and
Defendants’ exercise of dominion and control over Plaintiffs’ properties, the Eviction Moratoria
violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable seizures.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4.
This Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this case
arises under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and
because Plaintiffs seek redress of their civil rights under 28 U.S.C. § 1343. This Court is
empowered by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 to grant declaratory as well as other forms of relief,
including permanent injunctive relief, necessary to remedy the alleged constitutional violations.
5.
Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because the claims arose in
this judicial district and Defendants are the State of Oregon, the Governor of Oregon, and two
municipal corporations located in this judicial district. Assignment to the Portland Division is
proper because Defendants are located in Multnomah, Washington, and Clackamas Counties.
PARTIES
6.
Plaintiffs are housing providers who own dwelling units in Portland, Multnomah County,
and throughout Oregon that are currently occupied by tenants subject to the Eviction Moratoria.
7.
Plaintiff Moe Farhoud is the owner of Stark Firs Property Management. The company
gives people an opportunity to rent a quality dwelling unit at an affordable price. Mr. Farhoud
came to the United States as a child refugee escaping war in his native Lebanon. Mr. Farhoud
had a dream to provide those who encountered challenges in life with a second chance at
success. Mr. Farhoud therefore seeks to rent many units at his properties to tenants who have
had prior criminal records, bankruptcies, credit problems, and who have otherwise encountered
circumstances which would limit their ability to rent dwelling units.
4851-2635-5922v.13 0050033-004947
(503) 241-2300 main  (503) 778-5299 fax
8.
Mr. Farhoud bought his first building in 1988 has continued to buy other buildings. He
currently owns approximately 1200 apartment units throughout Portland, Multnomah County,
and the State of Oregon. He owns controlling interests in 44 distinct legal entities which own his
apartment buildings. Many of Mr. Farhoud’s tenants have refused to pay rent since March of
2020. The Eviction Moratoria have made it impossible for him to collect rent or replace tenants
who cannot pay rent with those who can. As of the date of filing, Mr. Farhoud’s tenants owe his
entities over $1 million dollars in back rent.
9.
Plaintiff Stark Firs Limited Partnership is Mr. Farhoud’s business that owns the Alder
Royal Apartments located in the City of Portland and Multnomah County. Many tenants of
Alder Royal Apartments have refused to pay rent since March of 2020. The Eviction Moratoria
have made it impossible for Stark Firs Limited Partnership to collect rent from or replace tenants
who cannot pay rent with those who can. To date, its tenants owe Stark Firs Limited Partnership
over $85,000.00 in back rent.
10.
Plaintiff Alder Village, Inc. is Mr. Farhoud’s business that owns the Alder Village
Apartments located in the City of Portland and Multnomah County. Many tenants of Alder
Village Apartments have refused to pay rent since March of 2020. The Eviction Moratoria have
made it impossible for Alder Village, Inc. to collect rent from or replace tenants who cannot pay
rent with those who can. To date, its tenants owe Alder Village, Inc. over $80,000.00 in back
rent.
11.
Plaintiff Star Krest, Inc. is Mr. Farhoud’s business that owns the Star Krest Apartments
located in the City of Portland and Multnomah County. Many tenants of Star Krest Apartments
have refused to pay rent since March of 2020. The Eviction Moratoria have made it impossible

4851-2635-5922v.13 0050033-004947
(503) 241-2300 main  (503) 778-5299 fax
for Star Krest, Inc. to collect rent from or replace tenants who cannot pay rent with those who
can. To date, its tenants owe Star Krest, Inc. over $29,000.00 in back rent.
12.
Plaintiff Ash Street Courtyard LLC is Mr. Farhoud’s business that owns the Ash Street
Courtyard Apartments located in the City of Portland and Multnomah County. Many tenants of
Ash Street Courtyard Apartments have refused to pay rent since March of 2020. The Eviction
Moratoria have made it impossible for Ash Street Courtyard LLC to collect rent from or replace
tenants who cannot pay rent with those who can. To date, its tenants owe Ash Street Courtyard
LLC over $52,000.00 in back rent.
13.
Plaintiffs Tyler and Crystal Sherman own 22 housing units throughout Oregon. Mr.
Sherman was 20 years old and working as a maintenance man for a property management
company when he decided that he wanted to build his own rental business. He purchased his
first duplex as a home and an investment. He went on to buy multiple other properties before
meeting Crystal a few years later. The Shermans often purchased properties that were vacant
and in need of major repairs. They have worked evenings, weekends, holidays, and late nights
on roofing, cleaning, painting, gutting, and remodeling poorly maintained properties into clean,
safe, affordable homes.

14.
Several of the Shermans’ tenants have refused to pay rent since March of 2020. On
information and belief, none of these tenants have lost employment due to the COVID-19 crisis.
The Eviction Moratoria have made it impossible for the Shermans to collect rent from or replace
their tenants who refuse to pay rent with those who can. To date, these tenants owe them in
excess of $8,000.00 in back rent.

4851-2635-5922v.13 0050033-004947
(503) 241-2300 main  (503) 778-5299 fax
15.
Defendant Governor Kate Brown is sued in her official capacity as Governor of the State
of Oregon and is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
4(k)(1)(A). At all pertinent times, Governor Brown was acting under color of law.
16.
Defendant State of Oregon (the “State”) is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this
Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(A). At all times, the State was acting under color of
law.
17.
Defendant Multnomah County (the “County”) is an Oregon municipal corporation
subject to the limits on home rule authority contained in the Oregon Constitution. The County is
subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(A). At all times,
the County was acting under color of law.
18.
Defendant City of Portland (the “City”) is an Oregon municipal corporation subject to the
limits on home rule authority contained in the Oregon Constitution. The City is subject to the
personal jurisdiction of this Court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(A). At all times, the City was
acting under color of law.

FACTS
19.
The COVID-19 pandemic was unprecedented, and the mystery of what would happen
next often led to delays in the government’s understanding of who would need what relief. The
disease remains an unknown quantity in many respects. However, the volume of information to
which governments now have access is prodigious, and it has led to changes in how governments
regulate and support their citizens and their citizens’ businesses. For example, pervasive concern
about the status of state budgets turned out to be misplaced. See Dirk Vanderhart, Oregon’s
latest budget projections reveal ‘shocking’ improvement from last forecasts, OREGON PUBLIC
4851-2635-5922v.13 0050033-004947
(503) 241-2300 main  (503) 778-5299 fax
BROADCASTING (Sept. 12, 2020 11:00 a.m.), https://www.opb.org/article/2020/09/23/oregons-
latest-budget-projections-reveal-shocking-improvement-from-past-forecasts/. The Governor,
with state coffers in a better position than she expected, announced targeted relief to certain
sectors of the economy found to be in dire need as a consequence of her orders. See Mike
Rogoway, Oregon Gov. Kate Brown pledges $55 million in state aid for businesses hurt by
COVID-19, THE OREGONIAN/OREGONLIVE (Nov. 17, 2020),
https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2020/11/oregon-gov-kate-brown-pledges-55-million-in-
state-aid-for-businesses-hurt-by-covid-19.html. The City, too, waited to announce relief to
targeted individuals and firms it found especially in need. Rebecca Ellis, Portland approves
distribution of $114 million in CARES Act funds, OREGON PUBLIC BROADCASTING (July 23, 2020
6:45 a.m.), https://www.opb.org/news/article/portland-oregon-city-council-approves-cares-act-
funds-distribution/.
20.
At the time of filing, Oregonians have been living with COVID-19 for over nine months.
Defendants know much more about the virus than they did when it first arrived, and they have
adapted their responses to the virus as their knowledge has grown. Yet Defendants’ approaches
to Plaintiffs and other landlords remain essentially the same. Whereas some favored groups have
been graced by Defendants’ largesse, Plaintiffs’ losses remain unaddressed. As a result, Plaintiffs
struggle under the combined weight of both the government-induced economic shutdown and the
public burden they have been ordered to privately shoulder as compelled providers of public
housing and housing services.
21.
The first eviction moratorium imposed in Oregon was enacted by the County on March
19, 2020 as Ordinance No. 1282. A true and correct copy of Ordinance No. 1282 is attached as
Exhibit 1 to this Complaint and is incorporated herein by reference. Among other provisions,
that ordinance

4851-2635-5922v.13 0050033-004947
(503) 241-2300 main  (503) 778-5299 fax
a. Prevented landlords from proceeding with any eviction based on nonpayment of
rent or other expenses;
b. Prevented landlords from charging late fees or penalties from unpaid rent or other
expenses; and
c. Prevented landlords from pursuing payment of back rent or other expenses until
six months after the County declared an end to the COVID-19 emergency.
22.
The City acted in accordance with the County, enacting its own moratorium that included
all of the features of the County’s moratorium and applied to parts of Portland not contained
within Multnomah County. A true and correct copy of City of Portland Ordinance No. 189890 is
attached as Exhibit 2 to this Complaint and is incorporated herein by reference.
23.
Governor Brown issued the first statewide eviction moratorium, Executive Order 20-11,
on March 22, 2020; that order prohibited law enforcement from serving, delivering, or acting on
any notice or judgment of eviction arising from nonpayment of rent. Just over a week later, on
April 1, 2020, Governor Brown signed Executive Order 20-13, enlarging and extending the
terms of EO 20-11 to commercial leases as well as residential rental agreements. True and
correct copies of both EOs 20-11 and 20-13 are attached to this Complaint as Exhibits 3 and 4,
respectively, and are incorporated herein by reference. On April 16, 2020, the County deferred
to the state eviction moratorium and suspended enforcement of its own enactment. A true and
correct copy of Multnomah County Ordinance No. 1284 is attached as Exhibit 5 to this
Complaint and is incorporated herein by reference.
24.
On June 26, 2020, during the 1st Special Legislative Session, the Oregon Legislative
Assembly enacted, and Governor Brown signed, 2020 House Bill 4213 (“HB 4213”), much of
which remains in effect today. HB 4213 streamlined eviction moratorium efforts statewide,
adopting the models piloted in the County and the City that prohibited evictions based on
4851-2635-5922v.13 0050033-004947
(503) 241-2300 main  (503) 778-5299 fax
nonpayment of rent, utilities and other charges due under a rental agreement and allowed
repayment following a six-month “grace period” beginning at the state-declared “end” of the
COVID-19 emergency. The legislation also prohibits landlords from charging interest or late
fees and prohibits landlords from referring back-rent obligations to collection companies for
collecting tenant’s past-due amounts. A true and correct copy of HB 4213 is attached as Exhibit
6 to this Complaint and is incorporated herein by reference.
25.
On September 24, 2020, the County adopted portions of HB 4213 to bring the County’s
eviction moratorium in line with state law. A true and correct copy of Multnomah County
Ordinance No. 1287 is included as Exhibit 7 to this Complaint and is incorporated herein by
reference. The County also extended the eviction moratorium emergency period through January
8, 2021.
26.
On September 28, 2020, Governor Brown issued EO 20-56, effectively extending
application of HB 4213 through December 31, 2020. A true and correct copy of EO 20-56 is
included as Exhibit 8 to this Complaint and is incorporated herein by reference.
27.
On September 30, 2020, the City enacted Ordinance No. 190156 applying Multnomah
County Ordinance No. 1287 to all portions of the City of Portland “wherever located within the
tri-county area[.]” A true and correct copy of City of Portland Ordinance No. 190156 is included
as Exhibit 9 to this Complaint and is incorporated herein by reference.
28.
On December 17, 2020, the County adopted Resolution No. 2020-110, which extended
the duration of the countywide emergency declaration and the countywide eviction moratorium
to July 2, 2021 and delayed the repayment date of back rent accrued during the moratorium to
January 2, 2022. A true and correct copy of Multnomah County Resolution No. 2020-110 is
included as Exhibit 10 to this Complaint and is incorporated herein by reference. Resolution No.
4851-2635-5922v.13 0050033-004947
(503) 241-2300 main  (503) 778-5299 fax
2020-110 provides that the countywide eviction moratorium is only in place and effective until
the state, federal, or local governments provide “equal or greater protections” to tenants.
29.
On December 21, 2020, the Legislative Assembly adopted HB 4401, which had several
effects on the existing Eviction Moratoria. A true and correct copy of HB 4401 is included as
Exhibit 11 to this Complaint and is incorporated herein by reference. The Governor is expected
to sign the bill within the next few days. HB 4401 extends the statewide eviction moratorium in
nearly all circumstances to June 30, 2021; correspondingly, the “grace period” during which
repayment of back rent is not required was also extended six months further, to December 30,
2021. As a result of this one effect of HB 4401, Plaintiffs will have been deprived of rental
income from many of their tenants for over 18 months. Perhaps most significant, HB 4401
expressly forbids landlords from filing claims to secure repayment of back rent notwithstanding
that such claims have no effect on the tenants’ possession. Thus, HB 4401 makes explicit what
Plaintiffs have feared since April of 2020: that they are now required to continue to provide
housing for individuals, including paying the associated costs of providing that housing, without
receiving any compensation from tenants for well over a year.
30.
HB 4401 also attempts to provide some relief and compensation to select landlords, all of
which is wholly inadequate. The “landlord assistance” provisions require every landlord that
participates in the program to forego fully one-fifth of the back rent owed to them. Moreover,
the “landlord assistance” is only funded for a fraction of the outstanding rent owed by tenants
across the state: HB 4401 dedicates $200 million to “landlord assistance,” but the full amount of
back rent owed is estimated at between $800 and $900 million. As a result, most housing
providers cannot receive assistance, and HB 4401 acknowledges this by allowing the Oregon
Housing and Community Services Department (“OHCS”) to restrict payments to housing
providers on a per-tenant, per-landlord, or per-time-period basis; on the basis of a minimum

threshold of affected tenants; or on the basis of a minimum threshold of unpaid rent. HB 4401
4851-2635-5922v.13 0050033-004947
(503) 241-2300 main  (503) 778-5299 fax
also requires OHCS to prioritize “landlord assistance” to smaller landlords with fewer units,
which likely would not include Plaintiffs.
31.
HB 4401 does not alleviate the Eviction Moratoria of their constitutional infirmities. In
many cases, HB 4401 makes the Eviction Moratoria worse for Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs will now go
unpaid through December 30, 2021; cannot seek piecemeal judgments from their tenants for
unpaid amounts; and will be required to forego—at a minimum—twenty percent of the funds
owed to them, if they receive anything at all.
32.
What began as temporary measures—the costs of which were to be borne by landlords
alone—have now been in place for most of a year and will remain in place through all of 2021.
Despite the time to prepare, the time to attend three special legislative sessions, the continued
deliberation of the state Emergency Board, the evolution of remote work, the significant volume
of new data about the virus, and the increased awareness of Oregonians’ financial precarity, the
Eviction Moratoria are still relying on the same approaches as were imposed in early spring. No
better balance has been struck, and the cost of the governments’ failure to act has continued to
fall on Plaintiffs’ shoulders, all of whom have been left to their own devices. On the other hand,
Defendants have continued to subsidize other, more favored, segments of society that have also
been impacted by Defendants’ responses to the pandemic.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violation of the Contracts Clause, Art. I, section 10

of the United States Constitution as incorporated and made
applicable to states by the Fourteenth Amendment
33.
Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1
through 32, above.

4851-2635-5922v.13 0050033-004947
(503) 241-2300 main  (503) 778-5299 fax
34.
Plaintiffs’ rental relationships with their tenants are controlled by contracts, including
rental agreements (the “Contracts”), all of which are enforceable contracts within the meaning of
Article I, section 10.
35.
The Contracts obligate Plaintiffs’ tenants to pay rent, utilities, and other related expenses
in exchange for the right to occupy portions of Plaintiffs’ premises. The Contracts also provide
for various means of enforcing that payment obligation, including the imposition of late fees and
penalties and right to terminate the tenancy and recover possession of the premises.
36.
The Eviction Moratoria substantially impair Plaintiffs’ Contracts with their tenants by (a)
allowing tenants to remain in possession of the premises notwithstanding their nonpayment of
rent, utilities, and other charges; (b) prohibiting Plaintiffs from recovering amounts, such as late
fees and other penalties, meant to compensate Plaintiffs for the time value of their money
resulting from tenants’ failure to pay rent, utilities, and other charges when due; (c) prohibiting
Plaintiffs from enforcing tenants’ payment obligations by seeking money judgments for debts
owed; and (d) prohibiting Plaintiffs from taking any other actions to recover possession of their
premises so as to protect themselves from the increased costs and decreased revenue this
circumstance creates.
37.
The above violations of the United States Constitution give rise to both declaratory and
injunctive remedies under the Federal Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

4851-2635-5922v.13 0050033-004947
(503) 241-2300 main  (503) 778-5299 fax
38.
Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration from this Court that the Eviction Moratoria violate
Article I, section 10, of the United States Constitution.
39.
Plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction directed to Defendants prohibiting any enforcement
or implementation of the Eviction Moratoria.
40.
Plaintiffs are entitled to recover their reasonable costs and attorney fees incurred in
bringing this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments

to the United States Constitution
41.
through 40, above.
42.
By requiring Plaintiffs to surrender possession of their premises to tenants—who are in
arrears and no longer entitled to possess the premises—for nearly one year without any form of
payment from either their tenants or from Defendants, and by expressly preventing Plaintiffs
from collecting amounts owed to them during that time or ensuring those amounts can actually
be collected following the “end” of the COVID-19 emergency, the Eviction Moratoria exceed
the bounds of the State’s police power and are instead an attempted exercise of eminent domain.

4851-2635-5922v.13 0050033-004947
(503) 241-2300 main  (503) 778-5299 fax
43.
The Eviction Moratoria constitute a per se taking under applicable Supreme Court case
law because the Eviction Moratoria represent a physical occupation of the Plaintiffs’ premises
without just compensation and the inability to legally replace a nonpaying tenant with a paying
tenant.
44.
The Eviction Moratoria also constitute a per se taking because they deprive Plaintiffs of
their rights to exclude individuals—including tenants who have not paid their rent, utilities, or
other charges—from Plaintiffs’ properties when those individuals no longer have any rights to
possession.
45.
The Eviction Moratoria’s attempts to facilitate the future payment of past-due rent at a
later time also amount to price controls that fail to provide for a reasonable rate of return to
Plaintiffs. The emergency that led to enactment of the Eviction Moratoria does not outweigh
their confiscatory effects resulting from their duration and the practical inability of Plaintiffs to
withdraw from the residential housing business. Although the Eviction Moratoria are nominally
“temporary,” they have been extended on at least seven occasions and are now extended through
the end of next year, December 30, 2021. Additionally, Plaintiffs are practically incapable of
withdrawing from the business of providing housing without suffering significant losses.
46.
Because the Eviction Moratoria impose significant burdens of extended duration on
Plaintiffs and because Plaintiffs cannot exit the business subject to those burdens with incurring
substantial losses, the Eviction Moratoria amount to price controls, which are confiscatory if they

4851-2635-5922v.13 0050033-004947
(503) 241-2300 main  (503) 778-5299 fax
fail to provide a reasonable rate of return. The Eviction Moratoria fail to provide a reasonable
rate of return because the unlikely recovery of past-due amounts at some unspecified future time
is not a reasonable rate, taking into account Plaintiffs’ operating costs, capital expenses, service
on their debt, and a sufficient regular return to assure confidence in the financial integrity of their
enterprises and not discourage investment. Plaintiffs still have to pay their mortgages; pay debt
service on past capital projects; maintain, repair, and otherwise keep up their properties under
applicable housing codes; pay utilities—in many cases, on tenants’ behalf; pay property taxes to
the very entities that are limiting Plaintiffs’ ability to pay anything; pay property management
costs; and still project enough confidence in their businesses to attract investors, suppliers, and
other business partners.
47.
The Eviction Moratoria are confiscatory price controls that fail to provide a reasonable
rate of return and therefore violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution, which prohibit the taking of property without just compensation.
48.
The above violations of the United States Constitution give rise to both declaratory and
injunctive remedies under the Federal Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
49.
Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration from this Court that the Eviction Moratoria violate
the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
50.
Plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction directed to Defendants prohibiting any enforcement
or implementation of the Eviction Moratoria.

4851-2635-5922v.13 0050033-004947
(503) 241-2300 main  (503) 778-5299 fax
51.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments

to the United States Constitution
52.
through 51, above.
53.
The Eviction Moratoria meaningfully interfere with Plaintiffs’ possessory interests in
their rental properties because they prevent Plaintiffs from taking several actions with respect to
their own properties, including occupying their properties, selling their properties without taking
substantial losses, or excluding individuals from their properties. The Eviction Moratoria also
profoundly change the character of Plaintiffs’ properties from income-generating properties to
government-mandated but unsubsidized properties incapable of generating sufficient revenue.
54.
Plaintiffs had an expectation of privacy concerning who can occupy their units because
their rental agreements with their tenants, as well as the identities of those tenants, are private.
Plaintiffs’ properties are not exposed to the public; the properties are not open to the public and
may only be inspected by government authorities to ensure compliance with safety codes. That
Plaintiffs do not presently occupy their properties does not change Plaintiffs’ reasonable
expectation that their private properties would remain private and that whoever in fact does
occupy those properties should be determined by the owners of those properties—Plaintiffs.

4851-2635-5922v.13 0050033-004947
(503) 241-2300 main  (503) 778-5299 fax
55.
Defendants’ ongoing seizure of Plaintiffs’ properties for Defendants’ own purposes is
unreasonable because Defendants’ seizure is unnecessarily intrusive, and no exigency required
Plaintiffs’ properties to be so invaded.
56.
Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to a declaration from this Court that the Eviction
Moratoria violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
57.
Plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction directed to Defendants prohibiting any further
enforcement or implementation of the Eviction Moratoria.
58.
REQUESTED RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for a judgment in their favor as follows:
A. Declaring the Eviction Moratoria to be invalid and unenforceable because they
violate the United States constitution;
B. Enjoining Governor Brown, the State, City, and County from taking any action to
implement, enforce, or extend, the Eviction Moratoria;
C. In the alternative, issuing an injunction requiring Defendants to design and
implement a plan to adequately compensate Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated for their
rental losses, incurred as a result of the Eviction Moratoria;

4851-2635-5922v.13 0050033-004947
(503) 241-2300 main  (503) 778-5299 fax
D. Awarding Plaintiffs their costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in bringing
this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and
E. Granting Plaintiffs such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
DATED this 21st day of December, 2020.
Respectfully submitted,
By: s/ John DiLorenzo, Jr.____________________

John DiLorenzo, Jr. OSB #802040
Email: johndilorenzo@dwt.com
Aaron K. Stuckey, OSB #954322
Email: aaronstuckey@dwt.com
Evan Christopher, OSB #183214
Email: evanchristopher@dwt.com
1300 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2400
Portland, OR 97201
Telephone: (503) 241-2300
Facsimile: (503) 778-5299
Counsel for Plaintiffs

4851-2635-5922v.13 0050033-004947
(503) 241-2300 main  (503) 778-5299 fax

Complaint, Farhoud v. Brown, No. 3:20-cv-02226-JR (D. Ore. Dec. 21, 2020)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complaint, Farhoud v. Brown, No. 3:20-cv-02226-JR (D. Ore. Dec. 21, 2020)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complaint, Farhoud v. Brown, No. 3:20-cv-02226-JR (D. Ore. Dec. 21, 2020)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 3:20-cv-02226-JR Document 1 Filed 12/21/20 Page 1 of 19

JOHN DILORENZO, JR., OSB #802040

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MOE FARHOUD, STARK FIRS LIMITED

GOVERNOR KATE BROWN, in her official

undersigned attorneys, hereby allege as follows.

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

a public purpose without just compensation.

Moratoria have the effect of:

under their rental agreements with tenants;

b. Preventing Plaintiffs from exercising their contractual rights to exclude

to Plaintiffs’ rental agreements;

those rent payments to the unpaid rental balance;

the declared emergency, whenever that time may be;

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

g. Preventing Plaintiffs from availing themselves of debt collection services by

preventing Plaintiffs from reporting past due accounts to collection agencies.

violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable seizures.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

entities over $1 million dollars in back rent.

over $85,000.00 in back rent.

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

LLC over $52,000.00 in back rent.

safe, affordable homes.

excess of $8,000.00 in back rent.

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

Defendant Multnomah County (the “County”) is an Oregon municipal corporation

the County was acting under color of law.

acting under color of law.

BROADCASTING (Sept. 12, 2020 11:00 a.m.), https://www.opb.org/article/2020/09/23/oregons-

latest-budget-projections-reveal-shocking-improvement-from-past-forecasts/. The Governor,

COVID-19, THE OREGONIAN/OREGONLIVE (Nov. 17, 2020),

state-aid-for-businesses-hurt-by-covid-19.html. The City, too, waited to announce relief to

6:45 a.m.), https://www.opb.org/news/article/portland-oregon-city-council-approves-cares-act-

housing and housing services.

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

a. Prevented landlords from proceeding with any eviction based on nonpayment of

rent or other expenses;

attached as Exhibit 2 to this Complaint and is incorporated herein by reference.

Complaint and is incorporated herein by reference.

6 to this Complaint and is incorporated herein by reference.

On September 28, 2020, Governor Brown issued EO 20-56, effectively extending

included as Exhibit 8 to this Complaint and is incorporated herein by reference.

as Exhibit 9 to this Complaint and is incorporated herein by reference.

receiving any compensation from tenants for well over a year.

Housing and Community Services Department (“OHCS”) to restrict payments to housing

providers on a per-tenant, per-landlord, or per-time-period basis; on the basis of a minimum

which likely would not include Plaintiffs.

owed to them, if they receive anything at all.

What began as temporary measures—the costs of which were to be borne by landlords

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation of the Contracts Clause, Art. I, section 10

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1

through 32, above.

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

Article I, section 10.

allowing tenants to remain in possession of the premises notwithstanding their nonpayment of

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP