of action under Section 238(c). Quicken has not cited to authority specifically holding that a private right of action should not be implied under Section 238(c), and the Court has not found any decisions directly on point. A number of courts have, however, declined to imply private rights of action under the NHA. See, e.g., Roberts v. Cameron-Brown Co., 556 F.2d 356, 361 (5th Cir.1977) (“No evidence exists demonstrating that Congress intended to create a private cause of action under the National Housing Act.”); Deubert v. Gulf Fed. Sav. Bank, 820 F.2d 754, 758-59 (5th Cir.1987) (“Our examination of the Cort factors leads us to conclude that no private cause of action can be implied from the National Housing Act.”); Moses v. Banco Mortg. Co., 778 F.2d 267, 272 n. 2 (5th Cir. 1985) (<HOLDING>) (citations omitted). Moreover, Quicken’s
holding that a private right of action exists holding that no private right of action exists recognizing private right of action holding that no implied private right of action exists under the nha and noting that the district of columbia first sixth and ninth circuits have held that the housing act and regulations promulgated thereunder do not satisfy the fourpart cort test and thus have refused to create a right of action for private parties who wish to sue to enforce the statute or regulations promulgated thereunder recognizing that no private right of action exists for subsection a violations