Dispute Over HIV/AIDS Treatment Grant Program Funding - U.S. Second Circuit
U.S. Second Circuit - The FindLaw 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries Blog

Dispute Over HIV/AIDS Treatment Grant Program Funding

Also Decided Today: Suit Over Construction of Resort and Contract Case

Hunt Const. Group, Inc. v. Brennan Beer Gorman, No. 08-5603, concerned an action for negligence and negligent misrepresentation against defendant design professionals over allegedly late and erroneous delivery of professional services as part of the construction of a resort.  The Second Circuit certified the following questions to the Vermont Supreme Court:  1) Does the economic loss doctrine bar a contractor from seeking purely economic damages against design professionals who allegedly provided negligent professional services in violation of the design professionals' contractual obligations with a mutual counterparty?  2) Does the economic loss doctrine apply to claims of negligent misrepresentation?

County of Suffolk v. Sebelius, No. 09-3193, involved an action under the Administrative Procedure Act seeking additional funding for fiscal years 2007 and 2008 from a grant program administered by the Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") pursuant to the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Modernization Act of 2006.  The court of appeals affirmed the dismissal of the action, holding that the congressional appropriations relating to the funds sought had been lawfully distributed -- and therefore exhausted -- and thus the court of appeals lacked authority to grant effectual relief in the context of an Article III case or controversy.

FCS Advisors, Inc. v. Fair Fin. Co., No. 09-2609, concerned a breach of contract action, in which the district court awarded post-judgment interest to plaintiff.  The Second Circuit vacated the award, holding that post-judgment interest was to be calculated at the federal rate provided for under 28 U.S.C. section 1961(a) where the court's jurisdiction was premised on the diversity of the citizenship of the parties and the contract giving rise to the action contained a choice-of-law provision directing application of New York law.

Related Resources