The laws do not indicate that there is a private cause of action for non-receipt of [EIP] funds.”); Breton v. Mnuchin of IRS, 2021 WL 5086400, * 3 (D.Conn. Nov. 2, 2021)(finding that the CARES Act does not provide for a private right of action); Puckett v. U.S. Dept. of Treasury Internal Revenue Service, 2021 WL 2550995, * 2 (N.D.Ohio June 22, 2021)(“The CARES Act did not establish a private right of action to dispute the IRS's determination of an individual's eligibility for the EIP.”); Phelps v. Mnuchin, 2021 WL 2138506, * 4 (N.D. Ind. May 26, 2021)(“there is no suggestion there is a private cause of action under the CARES Act for receipt of specific non-disbursed funds, and ‘[i]t is not this Court's function to raise up a cause of action where a statute has not created one.'”)
Magistrate Judge Stewart correctly found that the CARES Act does not contain a private right of action for the failure to provide individuals pandemic payments. See Arroyo v. Yellen, No. 1:21-CV-1250, 2022 WL 195042, *2 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2022) ("[C]ourts considering claims brought under the Cares Act have repeatedly found that it provides no private right of action, express or implied"), report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 913170 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2022); Breton v. Mnuchin of I.R.S., No. 3:21-CV-718, 2021 WL 5086400, *3 (D. Conn. Nov. 2, 2021) (finding no right of action as individual payments "are no longer available because the CARES Act imposed a deadline of December 31, 2020 for payments to be made or allowed. That deadline is now passed, and no more funds may be issued")
The laws do not indicate that there is a private cause of action for non-receipt of [EIP] funds.”); Breton v. Mnuchin of IRS, 2021 WL 5086400, * 3 (D.Conn. Nov. 2, 2021)(finding that the CARES Act does not provide for a private right of action); Puckett v. U.S. Dept. of Treasury Internal Revenue Service, 2021 WL 2550995, * 2 (N.D.Ohio June 22, 2021)(“The CARES Act did not establish a private right of action to dispute the IRS's determination of an individual's eligibility for the EIP.”); Phelps v. Mnuchin, 2021 WL 2138506, * 4 (N.D. Ind. May 26, 2021)(“there is no suggestion there is a private cause of action under the CARES Act for receipt of specific non-disbursed funds, and
Thus, in so far as Moffa seeks payment in the form of an advanced economic impact payment his request for relief is moot. See Hudson, 2021 WL 5782471, at *3; see also Clay v. Dep't of Treasury, No. 21-cv-08132, 2021 WL 5494274, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2021); Breton. v. Mnuchin I.R.S., No. 3:21-cv-718, 2021 WL 5086400, at *3 (D. Conn. Nov. 2, 2021); Blankenship v. Dep't of Treasury, I.R.S., No. 1:21-cv-581, 2021 WL 4819595, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2021).
(citations omitted)); Breton v. Mnuchin, No. 3:21-CV-718 (SRU), 2021 WL 5086400, at *3 (D. Conn. Nov. 2, 2021) (“[T]he issue whether Breton is owed payments is moot. EIPs are no longer available because the CARES Act imposed a deadline of December 31, 2020 for payments to be made or allowed.
Initially, the Internal Revenue Service maintained that incarcerated individuals were not eligible for EIPs. Breton v. Mnuchin of the I.R.S., No. 3:21-CV-718, 2021 WL 5086400, at *3 (D. Conn. Nov. 2, 2021). In response, several incarcerated individuals filed suit and eventually sought to certify a class.
Courts that have decided cases following Scholl where individual incarcerated plaintiffs have sought EIP payments have further concluded that the CARES Act does not provide for a private right of action, and that the issue is now moot as the CARES Act imposed a December 31, 2020, deadline for EIP payments. See, e.g., Breton v. Mnuchin of I.R.S, No. 3:21-CV-718 (SRU), 2021 WL 5086400, at *3 (D. Conn. Nov. 2, 2021). This Court is in agreement with those decisions and plaintiff has provided no argument or evidence on which it would conclude otherwise in this case.
More importantly, funds cannot now be distributed pursuant to the CARES Act." Martinez v. Internal Revenue Serv., No. 21-CV-08886-PJH, 2021 WL 5823525, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2021) (Hamilton, J.) (dismissing with prejudice for failure to state a claim a case seeking court intervention to obtain an EIP under the CARES Act); see also Breton v. Mnuchin of IRS, No. 3:21-CV-718 (SRU), 2021 WL 5086400, at *3 (D. Conn. Nov. 2, 2021) ("There is no indication that the CARES Act provides a private cause of action for individuals seeking payment. Even if it did however, the issue whether Breton is owed payments is moot.
See Clay v. Dep't of Treasury, No. 21-cv-08132, 2021 WL 5494274, at*3 6 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2021); Breton. v. Mnuchin I.R.S., No. 3:21-cv-718, 2021 WL 5086400, at *3 (D. Conn. Nov. 2, 2021); Blankenship v. Dep't of Treasury, I.R.S., No. 1:21-cv-581, 2021 WL 4819595, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2021). Conclusion
Initially, the Internal Revenue Service maintained that incarcerated individuals were not eligible for EIPs. Breton v. Mnuchin of the I.R.S., No. 3:21-cv-718 (SRU), 2021 WL 5086400, at *3 (D. Conn. Nov. 2, 2021). In response, several incarcerated individuals filed suit and eventually sought to certify a class.