The landlord in the egregious example cited in the very short article can sue the tenant.
The moratorium simply means the tenant can't be evicted for non-payment of rent. It doesn't mean that the tenant does not owe rent for the period, and while judges are generally lenient to people struggling to make rent, that wouldn't apply to the tenant described in the article.
Correct. The landlord can always sue the tenant(s) for missed rent if they wish. In the case of the landlord in the article, a judge will probably be unsympathetic to their "plight", and could even order wage garnishment.
They're probably whining because landlord-tenant lawsuits are usually expensive and the tenants might not have the money to pay back. Like, you might spend $10k trying to get back $15k and only get back say, $3-5k of that money.
In this case, the tenant is alleged to have been able to afford a new collectible car and vacations while skimping out on rent, so this isn't that type of tenant.
Moreover, in cases of deliberate malfeasance such as these, judges can and sometimes do award legal fees. It doesn't happen frequently in landlord-tenant cases, but it does happen regularly in cases involving wealthy tenants.
> A crap link is one that's only superficially interesting. Stories on HN don't have to be about hacking, because good hackers aren't only interested in hacking, but they do have to be deeply interesting.
> What does "deeply interesting" mean? It means stuff that teaches you about the world. A story about a robbery, for example, would probably not be deeply interesting. But if this robbery was a sign of some bigger, underlying trend, perhaps it could be.
I think this story is a sign of a bigger thing that isn't getting much notice, and which has some pretty big implications.
What bigger thing could it be a sign of? Apparently, from this legal site compilation, Los Angeles and DC are the only places left that still have an eviction moratorium: https://www.lawdistrict.com/articles/eviction-moratoriums-by.... This doesn't appear to be any kind of trend, just the last hold-out in the otherwise widespread return to normal, non-pandemic rental laws. Do you think it's a sign of something big specifically happening in Los Angeles?
For the Supreme Court to make rulings, there needs to be a lawsuit. Regardless, there was a ruling last year[0] that said the CDC didn't have the authority for a nationwide moratorium.
In addition, because this is LA doing this, not the federal government, the Supreme Court is less likely to take up an appeal should there be an actual lawsuit. They tend to prefer country/city lawsuits to stay in the state.
---
[0]: Alabama Association of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Services
Supreme Court likes to take contradictory cases as well.
So if 9th circuit says no and 1st says yes. Then it's good chance for Supreme Court to jump in.
The moratorium simply means the tenant can't be evicted for non-payment of rent. It doesn't mean that the tenant does not owe rent for the period, and while judges are generally lenient to people struggling to make rent, that wouldn't apply to the tenant described in the article.