Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01738/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01738-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

– 1 – 14-cv-1024-BAS(WVG)

1 

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADRIANA ROVAI,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 14-cv-1738-BAS (WVG)

ORDER: 

(1)GRANTING IN PART 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

TO DISMISS; AND 

(2)STAYING THE CASE

[ECF 11]

v.

SELECT PORTFOLIO 

SERVICING, INC.,

Defendant.

On July 24, 2014, Plaintiff Adriana Rovai brought a prospective class action 

against Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. ECF 1. The Complaint alleges eight causes 

of action: seven purportedly under state law, one a “violation of 26 U.S.C. § 

6050H”. Plaintiff claims federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 

2201, 2022. Compl. ¶ 33. Additionally, she claims jurisdiction under the Class 

Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a) and (d). Id.

On December 12, 2014, Defendant brought a motion to dismiss the 

Complaint. ECF 11. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART the 

motion. The Court DISMISSES with prejudice Plaintiff’s eighth cause of action

and STAYS the remaining claims pending a determination by the Internal Revenue 

Service (“IRS”).

Case 3:14-cv-01738-BAS-MSB Document 16 Filed 05/11/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
– 2 – 14-cv-1024-BAS(WVG)

1 

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

I. Dismissing 26 U.S.C. § 6050H Cause of Action

Defendant seeks to dismiss Plaintiff’s eighth claim, brought under 26 U.S.C. 

§ 6050H, because that statute provides no private right of action. 

To begin, 26 U.S.C. § 6050H requires companies that have received 

mortgage interest in excess of $600 from a debtor to provide a mortgage interest 

statement (or an IRS Form 1098) to that debtor. Defendant correctly states that 

there is no expressly created private cause of action. Plaintiff asks the Court to 

imply a private remedy under § 6050H, citing Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 78 (1975). 

Cort uses a four-factor test to determine whether a statute implicitly includes 

a private cause of action:

First, is the plaintiff one of the class for whose especial benefit the 

statute was enacted—that is, does the statute create a federal right in 

favor of the plaintiff? Second, is there any indication of legislative 

intent, explicit or implicit, either to create such a remedy or to deny 

one? Third, is it consistent with the underlying purposes of the 

legislative scheme to imply such a remedy for the plaintiff? And 

finally, is the cause of action one traditionally relegated to state law, 

in an area basically the concern of the States, so that it would be 

inappropriate to infer a cause of action based solely on federal law?

Cort, 422 U.S. at 78.

Under later cases, courts have emphasized that the “key inquiry is whether 

Congress intended to provide the plaintiff with a private right of action.” First Pac. 

Bancorp, Inc. v. Helfer, 224 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2000). Some courts have 

gone so far as to opine that Cort has been “effectively overruled.” Thompson v. 

Thompson, 484 U.S. 174, 188 (1988) (O’Connor, J. and Scalia, J., concurring). In 

any case, the Ninth Circuit has determined that the four-factor test is helpful in 

determining the legislature’s intent. Helfer, 224 F.3d at 1121.

Statutes similar to 26 U.S.C. § 6050H that create private rights of action do 

so explicitly. For example, § 18(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (1934 

Act), 48 Stat. 897, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 78q(a), “creates a private cause of 

action against persons, such as accountants, who ‘make or cause to be made’

Case 3:14-cv-01738-BAS-MSB Document 16 Filed 05/11/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
– 3 – 14-cv-1024-BAS(WVG)

1 

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

materially misleading statements in any reports or other documents filed with the 

Commission, although the cause of action is limited to persons who, in reliance on 

the statements, purchased or sold a security whose price was affected by the 

statements.” Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington, 442 U.S. 560, 572 (1979) (quoting 

15 U.S.C. § 78r(a)). In Touche Ross, the Supreme Court found no private cause of 

action for statutes “that simply require certain regulated businesses to keep records 

and file periodic reports to enable the relevant governmental authorities to perform 

their regulatory functions” without explicit language creating a private right. Id. at

569.

Generally, “[s]tatutes that focus on the person regulated rather than the 

individuals protected create ‘no implication of an intent to confer rights on a 

particular class of persons.’” Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 289 (2001) 

(quoting California v. Sierra Club, 451 U.S. 287, 294 (1981)). Because 26 U.S.C. § 

6050H does not explicitly create a private cause of action and focuses on the person 

regulated, the Court is reticent to imply a private right. See Sandoval, 532 U.S. at 

287 (“Raising up causes of action where a statute has not created them may be a 

proper function for common-law courts, but not for federal tribunals.” Lampf, 

Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson, 501 U.S. 350, 365 (1991) (Scalia, 

J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment).). Requiring a mortgagor to 

provide its Form 1098s to the mortgagee, in addition to the IRS, permits a 

mortgagee to stay apprised of the accruing tax burden and benefit, but it does not 

follow that this entitles a mortgagee to private recourse under the statute.

Lastly, other courts addressing this statute have considered this issue and 

declined to read 26 U.S.C. 6050H as creating a private cause of action. See Barbieri 

v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. CIV.A. 09-3196, 2014 WL 7330461, at *9 (E.D. Pa. 

Dec. 22, 2014). It is possible that the 1098 forms, if inaccurate, are challengeable 

with the IRS or under a common law theory, but 26 U.S.C. § 6050H does not itself 

create a private cause of action against the mortgagor. Accordingly, the Court

Case 3:14-cv-01738-BAS-MSB Document 16 Filed 05/11/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
– 4 – 14-cv-1024-BAS(WVG)

1 

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

GRANTS IN PART Defendant’s motion and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE 

the eighth cause of action for violation of 26 U.S.C. § 6050H.1

II. Staying Action Under Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction

Under primary jurisdiction doctrine, courts may “allocate initial 

decisionmaking responsibility” to an agency when a cognizable claim first requires 

“resolution of an issue of first impression, or of a particularly complicated issue 

that Congress has committed to a regulatory agency.” Syntek Semiconductor Co. v. 

Microchip Tech. Inc., 307 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Richard J. Pierce, 

Jr., Administrative Law Treatise § 14.1, p. 917 (4th ed.2002) and Brown v. MCI 

WorldCom Network Servs., Inc., 277 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir.2002)). This is a 

question within a court’s discretion, although factors considered may include “(1) 

the need to resolve an issue that (2) has been placed by Congress within the 

jurisdiction of an administrative body having regulatory authority (3) pursuant to a 

statute that subjects an industry or activity to a comprehensive regulatory authority 

that (4) requires expertise or uniformity in administration.” Syntek (citing General 

Dynamics Corp., 828 F.2d 1356, 1362 (9th Cir.1987)).

In United States v. W. Pac. R. Co., 352 U.S. 59, 65 (1956), the Supreme 

Court determined that the Interstate Commerce Commision, “in the interests of a 

uniform and expert administration of the regulatory scheme[,]” should first 

construe the scope of tariffs regulating the transportation of incendiary bombs. 

Here, the state law causes of action each turn on whether Defendant

accurately reported the interest paid in Plaintiff’s 1098 Forms. These forms are 

completed, submitted, and relied upon by the IRS to enforce the nationwide 

taxation scheme Congress has entrusted to it. The IRS promulgates rules regarding 

the scope of interest payments and the proper administration of Form 1098s. 26 

 

1 The Court notes that the claims requiring Fed Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)’s heightened pleading standard appear 

doomed to fail under these facts. However, as the Court will likely permit Plaintiff to amend the Complaint if the IRS 

rules in her favor, any such determination would be without prejudice or mooted by the subsequent complaint.

Case 3:14-cv-01738-BAS-MSB Document 16 Filed 05/11/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
– 5 – 14-cv-1024-BAS(WVG)

1 

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

C.F.R. § 1.221-1; 26 C.F.R. § 1.6050H-2. The IRS’ position is therefore necessary 

in this case to determine whether Defendant’s actions breached any duties to 

Plaintiff. 

This Court previously ruled that determining the proper method of reporting 

Option Arm loan interest should be referred to the IRS under the primary 

jurisdiction doctrine. See Order Granting in Part Motion to Dismiss and Staying 

Case, Pemberton et al. v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, 3:14-cv-01738-BAS-WVG, 

ECF 17 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2015).2The Court’s analysis there applies equally to the 

present facts. Consequently, the Court sua sponte ORDERS this matter STAYED 

pending the IRS’s determination in that matter. Plaintiff’s counsel shall cross-file 

any status updates from the Pemberton action concurrently in this matter.

Lastly, the Court OVERRULES Defendant’s objection to the notice of 

related case and subsequent judicial transfer. The matter was transferred prior to 

this Court’s ruling on any motions, and so there is no evidence that Plaintiff 

initiated the transfer to shop for favorable rulings. Further, the underlying IRS 

determination is identical, as are the causes of action. This Court is familiar with 

these legal issues and the required factual determinations, and therefore judicial 

efficiency is promoted by the transfer.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 11, 2015

 

2

To summarize the basis for primary jurisdiction: this is an issue of first impression, and it 

requires expertise and uniformity to properly administer.

Case 3:14-cv-01738-BAS-MSB Document 16 Filed 05/11/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5