U.S. Bank N.A. v. 1226 Evergreen Bapaz LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “statutory language that merely ‘benefits’ putative plaintiffs without specific rights-creating language is insufficient to confer a personal federal right enforceable under § 1983” (citing Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 282 (2002))
• stating that after Gonzaga and Sandoval, “the rule expressed in Loschiavo, that a federal regulation alone may create a right enforceable through § 1983, is no longer viable”
• rejecting plaintiffs argument that, because implication of a remedy would not be inconsistent with the regulatory scheme, such remedy should be implied
• agreeing with lower court that \[n]othing in these provisions [including § 1437(a)(1)(A) ] establishes a clear and unambiguous intent by Congress to create privately enforceable rights under § 1983 to ensure compliance with housing quality standards\ (citation omitted)
• § 1437d(f) focuses on HUD’s responsibilities and gives HUD the authority to issue housing quality standards, but it does not contain language that unambiguously creates tenants’ rights

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).