666 Fed.Appx. 70 (2nd Cir. 2016), 15-4123-cv, Cressy v. Proctor
|Citation:||666 Fed.Appx. 70|
|Party Name:||Ronald Cressy, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant -- Appellee, v. Kevin Proctor, Defendant-Counter-Claimant -- Appellant|
|Attorney:||FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE: DEVIN MCLAUGHLIN, Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP, Middlebury, VT. FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: MARK P. SCHERZER, Law Office of Mark P. Scherzer, New York, NY, Richard Thomas Cassidy, Hoff Curtis, Burlington, VT.|
|Judge Panel:||PRESENT: PETER W. HALL, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges. NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS, District Judge.[*]|
|Case Date:||December 12, 2016|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit|
This case was not selected for publication in the Federal Reporter and Not to be Cited as Precedent. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont (Sessions, J.).
FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE: DEVIN MCLAUGHLIN, Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP, Middlebury, VT.
FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: MARK P. SCHERZER, Law Office of Mark P. Scherzer, New York, NY, Richard Thomas Cassidy, Hoff Curtis, Burlington, VT.
PRESENT: PETER W. HALL, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges. NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS, District Judge.[*]
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Following a bench trial, defendant-appellant Kevin Proctor appeals the district court's award of quantum meruit restitution to plaintiff-appellee Ronald Cressy. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
I. Standard of Review
The parties dispute the proper standard of review with respect to the district court's decision to award quantum meruit restitution. Proctor argues that " [w]hether quantum meruit damages were properly awarded in the circumstances presented is a question of law reviewed de novo." Appellant's Brief, 27. Cressy argues that " [u]nder both Vermont law and the law of this Circuit, review of this type of decision is limited to abuse of discretion." Appellee's Brief, 9. Proctor cites no authority in support of his position, and we can find none. We are convinced that, under both Vermont law and Second Circuit precedent, review is for abuse of discretion, and to the extent that the decision under review relies on findings of fact, those findings are reviewed for clear error. See, e.g., Amara v. Cigna Corp., 775 F.3d 510, 519 (2d Cir. 2014) (" The district court's award of equitable relief also may be reversed only for an abuse of discretion or for a clear error of law. Where the district court's determinations regarding . . . equitable remedies are supported by findings of fact, such findings are reviewed under the 'clearly erroneous' standard." ); Weed v. Weed, 185 Vt. 83, 968 A.2d 310, 315 (Vt. 2008) (" We review equitable remedies...for a trial court's abuse of discretion." ).
With respect to the district court's rejection of the equitable affirmative defenses raised by Proctor, the parties agree that review on...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP