the magistrate judge found that under § 1709(b), which allows an equitable action to enforce “any right” under § 1703, plaintiffs are entitled to rescission provided they show that the § 1703(c) violation— the failure to provide notice of the automatic revocation right — was a substantial violation that prejudiced each plaintiff. To begin with, the magistrate judge incorrectly concluded that it was appropriate to refer to Virginia law in considering the availability and elements of an ILSFDA claim for equitable rescission. It is well established that federal law, and not state law, governs the remedies available in a lawsuit in federal court arising under a federal cause of action. See Franklin v. Gwinnett County Pub. Sch., 503 U.S. 60, 66, 112 S.Ct. 1028, 117 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992) (<HOLDING>); Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 375, 110 S.Ct.
holding that federal common law governs equitable remedies available under erisa holding that the elements of a hostile environment claim under title vii equally apply under title ix holding that federal law governs remedies available under title ix holding that a claim for retaliation does not lie under title ix recognizing that most other courts apply title vii principles to title ix cases but refusing to apply title viis knew or should have known standard to a title ix claim