- Deceptive lease terms:Tenants were allegedly induced into signing agreements that sought to void rights guaranteed by state law—including the right to sue for repairs and make legally-permitted rent deductions.
- Section 8 Discrimination:PAMA is accused of telling voucher holders that no units were available, while simultaneously renting to others without vouchers—a violation of antidiscrimination statutes.
This lawsuit is a landmark moment in California’s decades-long struggle to hold powerful landlords accountable and enforce habitability standards. Despite repeated reports, media investigations, and city complaints over the years, large-scale, persistent exploitation of vulnerable tenants remains alarmingly common—especially in a housing market plagued by scarcity and skyrocketing rents.
For many, the Bonta v. Nijjar lawsuit is about more than just one landlord or one set of buildings—it’s a test of whether California will finally enforce the promise of safe, affordable, and dignified housing for all.
The coming legal battle will undoubtedly draw national attention, especially as tenant rights, housing policy, and corporate accountability remain urgent public debates. Nijjar’s legal team promises a vigorous defense; advocates for tenants and affordable housing hope this is the start of a broader reckoning.
For residents still living under PAMA’s management, the lawsuit brings hope—but the need for robust, systemic enforcement has never been clearer.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs. SWARANJIT NIJJAR a/k/a MIKE NIJJAR, et al.
A copy of the complaint can be found here.
