Paul Mik, Jr. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a plaintiff may use violations of federal law “ ‘offensively’ to establish a state law cause of action” even where the statute does not provide for a private right of action under federal law, and expressly rejecting an argument similar to defendants’
• noting that the “PTFA provides that successors in interest must ordinarily allow bona fide tenants to occupy the foreclosed property until the end of their lease term” and “requires successors in interest to provide bona fide tenants with 90 days’ notice to vacate”
• agreeing with the Seventh Circuit that a “violation of federal law can support a state law claim, even when—or, perhaps, especially when—there is no private right of action under a federal statute”
• “Congress ... did not provide a private right of action against individuals or non-governmental entities who violate TARP’s provisions.”
• “Unless . . . intent can be inferred from the language of the statute, the statutory structure, or some other source, the essential predicate for implication of a private remedy simply does not exist.” (citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).