California Attorney General Targets SoCal Real Estate Giant Mike Nijjar In Major State Lawsuit Over Dangerous Living Conditions and Exploitation of Tenants With Section 8 Vouchers

0
475
  • A PAMA-owned mobile home in Kern County was the site of a fatal fire that killed an infant. The structure was not even permitted for human habitation.
  • The Chesapeake Apartments in South L.A.—a 425-unit complex—accumulated more public health violations in five years than any other residential property in the county, with persistent reports of sewage, mold, and shoddy repairs.

Legal Maneuvers and Industry Response

The scale of Nijjar’s holdings—estimated in the billions—has enabled repeated reorganizations and evasions of regulatory crackdowns. After the 2016 mobile home tragedy, the state revoked licenses linked to Nijjar’s businesses. His family simply shifted business structures, the lawsuit contends, continuing operations largely uninterrupted.

Prior city actions, including nuisance abatement suits and habitability complaints, resulted in settlements or ongoing litigation, but tenant conditions reportedly remained unchanged. The California DOJ’s latest suit seeks to change that trajectory—demanding penalties, restitution for tenants, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, and a court order barring Nijjar and PAMA from continuing their alleged unlawful practices.

The defense is pushing back—hard.

Signup for the USA Herald exclusive Newsletter

“The allegations in the complaint are false and misleading, and its claims are legally erroneous,” Nijjar’s attorney Stephen Larson said. “We look forward to demonstrating in court that Mr. Nijjar and his companies are not only compliant with the law, but they provide an extraordinary service to housing those disadvantaged and underserved by California’s public and private housing markets.”
— Stephen Larson, attorney for Mike Nijjar

Perhaps most striking, the lawsuit claims systematic violations of California’s rent cap law. On more than 2,000 occasions, PAMA allegedly raised rents beyond legal limits by shifting utility costs onto tenants and applying unlawful surcharges, resulting in effective hikes up to 20%—more than double the allowable increase.

Other allegations include: