From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fairmont Designs v. U.S.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
Aug 25, 2008
315 F. App'x 235 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

Summary

explaining HUD was not in privity because "section 4a of the 2005 HAP [R]enewal [C]ontract stated that terms of the expiring HAP [C]ontract were renewed '[e]xcept as specifically modified by the Renewal Contract'" (fourth alteration in original)

Summary of this case from Normandy Apartments, Ltd. v. United States

Opinion

No. 2007-1373.

August 25, 2008.

J. Michael Taylor, Joseph W. Dorn, Jeffrey M. Telep, King Spalding LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellees.

Peter J. Koenig, Daniel P. Wendt, Miller Chevalier, Chartered, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Michael J. Dierberg, Michael D. Panzera, Department of Justice, Natasha Robinson, Department of Commerce, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee.


ORDER

Upon consideration of the parties' joint stipulation of dismissal, the appeal is hereby dismissed, with each party bearing its own costs.


Summaries of

Fairmont Designs v. U.S.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
Aug 25, 2008
315 F. App'x 235 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

explaining HUD was not in privity because "section 4a of the 2005 HAP [R]enewal [C]ontract stated that terms of the expiring HAP [C]ontract were renewed '[e]xcept as specifically modified by the Renewal Contract'" (fourth alteration in original)

Summary of this case from Normandy Apartments, Ltd. v. United States
Case details for

Fairmont Designs v. U.S.

Case Details

Full title:FAIRMONT DESIGNS, INC., Dongguan Sunrise Furniture Co., Taicang Sunrise…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit

Date published: Aug 25, 2008

Citations

315 F. App'x 235 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

Citing Cases

Normandy Apartments, Ltd. v. United States

The 2004 HAP Contract did specifically modify the earlier contract, however, in that OHFA was named the…