Los Angeles tenants have filed a federal lawsuit accusing the city’s housing authority of cutting off Section 8 vouchers through confusing, contradictory, and misleading practices that left families believing they were complying with program rules right up until the moment HACLA terminated their benefits. The complaint, filed by the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles and the Law Office of Autumn Elliott, alleges that HACLA’s notices and staff communications routinely misled tenants about what they needed to do and whether they even needed a hearing, creating a system where people lose essential housing assistance despite doing everything the agency told them to do.

For Gwenita Simpson, the process began with a notice listing twenty four potential missing documents but leaving every checkbox blank. Days later, HACLA sent her a termination warning that included a handwritten list in oversized lettering instructing her to submit three specific categories of documents. According to the lawsuit, Simpson’s advisor reinforced the impression that turning in those documents was the only required step and repeatedly threatened that her voucher “will be taken” if she did not comply. Simpson submitted everything she was asked for and was told a hearing would be scheduled. Instead, HACLA terminated her benefits without ever giving her that hearing.

The confusion only deepened after termination. HACLA continued sending her routine recertification packets as if she were still enrolled, and Simpson only learned her voucher had been cut when HUD informed her directly. The complaint argues this pattern shows HACLA’s notices are “ambiguous or misleading” and not reasonably calculated to inform tenants of their rights.

Latrice Cannon, who had relied on her voucher for more than twenty years, went through a similar ordeal. She submitted her annual review documents, then received a duplicate packet without explanation. When she emailed her advisor, she was told the second packet had been sent “by mistake” and to discard it. Days later, the advisor sent a voicemail warning that her case would still be terminated unless more paperwork was submitted, even though Cannon had already turned everything in. According to the lawsuit, Cannon then tried repeatedly to get guidance from supervisors, received conflicting messages from her advisor, and ultimately had her voucher terminated without ever receiving a formal termination notice.

HACLA only acknowledged that Cannon’s case had been closed after she contacted multiple managers. By then, she had an eviction notice demanding the rent HACLA had stopped paying. The agency later offered to readmit her “under certain conditions” but has refused to explain what those conditions are or whether it will issue retroactive payments to prevent eviction.

The lawsuit argues these are not isolated breakdowns but part of a broader pattern in which HACLA issues notices that misrepresent how tenants can challenge terminations, pressures tenants to focus on document submission rather than hearings, and then terminates benefits once hearing deadlines pass. The complaint further alleges that HACLA leadership, including its CEO and Section 8 Director, were alerted to these due process violations and refused to intervene.

With more than 60,000 Los Angeles households relying on Section 8, advocates warn that these failures put thousands at risk of sudden homelessness. The lawsuit seeks to restore Simpson and Cannon’s vouchers and compel HACLA to overhaul its practices so that tenants receive clear notice, real hearings, and fair process before their only housing lifeline is taken away.