942 F.3d 106
2d Cir.2019Background
- Mary and Carmine Centrella purchased a Ritz‑Craft modular home built by Mountain View; they relied on Ritz‑Craft representations that its homes were Energy Star‑level, code‑compliant, and that Ritz‑Craft oversaw construction.
- After moving in, the Centrellas discovered significant construction and code defects (insulation, heating/plumbing, leaks, carbon monoxide), and sued Mountain View and Ritz‑Craft under the Vermont Consumer Protection Act (VCPA) and for breach of warranties.
- Mountain View defaulted; the parties stipulated that, if the jury found a VCPA violation by Ritz‑Craft, damages attributable to Ritz‑Craft would be $94,262; the jury found a VCPA violation and awarded that stipulated sum.
- The Centrellas moved post‑trial for prejudgment interest on the VCPA award; the district court denied interest, concluding the VCPA does not expressly provide for prejudgment interest and that damages were not reasonably ascertainable.
- The Second Circuit panel concluded the central question—whether private plaintiffs may receive prejudgment interest on compensatory VCPA awards (here, stipulated and therefore readily ascertainable)—presents a determinative question of Vermont law with no controlling precedent and certified the question to the Vermont Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a court may award prejudgment interest to private litigants awarded compensatory damages under the VCPA (here, stipulated damages). | Prejudgment interest is available under Vt. R. Civ. P. 54(a) and Vermont precedent when damages are liquidated or readily ascertainable; interest is needed to make plaintiffs whole. | VCPA’s remedy clause lists specific remedies (damages, attorney’s fees, treble damages) but omits prejudgment interest, suggesting exclusion; district court also found damages not ascertainable. | The Second Circuit did not decide the issue; it certified the question to the Vermont Supreme Court as determinative and lacking controlling state precedent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smedberg v. Detlef’s Custodial Servs., Inc., 182 Vt. 349 (Vt. 2007) (prejudgment interest mandated when damages are liquidated or readily ascertainable; discretionary otherwise)
- d’Arc Turcotte v. Estate of LaRose, 153 Vt. 196 (Vt. 1989) (prejudgment interest required to make plaintiffs whole for compensatory damages)
- Bull v. Pinkham Eng’g Assocs., Inc., 170 Vt. 450 (Vt. 2000) (prejudgment interest awarded as of right when principal sum is liquidated or readily ascertainable)
- Gramatan Home Inv’rs Corp. v. Starling, 143 Vt. 527 (Vt. 1983) (VCPA enacted to protect consumers and encourage private enforcement)
- Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, 562 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2011) (use of expressio unius canon: listing remedies can imply exclusion of others)
- Preseault v. City of Burlington, 412 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2005) (federal appellate certification of state law questions to state supreme court appropriate when controlling precedent lacking)
- Pasternack v. Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings, 807 F.3d 14 (2d Cir. 2015) (certification appropriate where state law question implicates policy judgments)
- Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co., 537 U.S. 149 (U.S. 2003) (expressio unius supports inference that unmentioned items were deliberately excluded)