elapsed. Id. The owners complied with the order. Sometime thereafter, the district court dismissed the action. On appeal, the First Circuit concluded that the district court had provided all of the redress to which the organization was entitled by entering the restraining order. Id. at 9. With regards to the claims against the owners, the Court of Appeals concluded that the plaintiffs lacked standing since the restraining order provided plaintiffs all the relief to which they were entitled, ie., precluding eviction until one year after the notice. Thus, the First Circuit held that an owner can decide not to renew a project-based HAP contract so long as the tenants are given the proper one-year notice. See also Owens v. Charleston Housing Authority, 336 F.Supp.2d 934, 943 (E.D.Mo.2004) (<HOLDING>). Like in PEH, Plaintiffs here effectively have
holding that the current property owner may not assert a public nuisance claim against the former owner holding that the decision whether to renew a hap rests entirely with the owner and that an owner has no legal obligation to renew holding that this court lacked jurisdiction to review the faas decision to not renew a pilot examiner designation holding that the faas decision not to renew an aircraft examiners authority is nonreviewable holding stock dividend payable to actual owner not owner of record