Trustees Of The New York City District Council Of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Hot
Trustees Of The New York City District Council Of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Annuity Fund, and Apprenticeship, Journeyman Retraining, Educational and Industry Fund v. Al Hot, Inc.
- Garnett
- 1:24-cv-01236
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Trustees of New York City District Council Carpenters v. Al Hot, Inc.: Judge Garnett confirmed an unopposed arbitration award and entered a $182,568.22 judgment.
The petitioners received confirmation of the arbitration award and a money judgment against Al Hot, Inc., which is also identified by several other business names in the caption. Al Hot is obligated to pay the judgment and post-judgment interest.
What happened
In Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Annuity Fund, and Apprenticeship, Journeyman Retraining, Educational and Industry Fund v. Al Hot, Inc., the petitioners asked the court to confirm an arbitration award issued on August 22, 2023. Al Hot did not appear, respond, or seek relief from the award.
The court reviewed the petition and supporting materials as it would a request for summary judgment, which is a decision made when no important factual dispute requires a trial. It found that the arbitrator had provided enough explanation for the decision and found no legal basis under the federal arbitration law to set the award aside.
Judge Margaret M. Garnett granted the petition, confirmed the award in all respects, and entered judgment for the petitioners against Al Hot. The judgment totaled $182,568.22, plus post-judgment interest at the statutory rate of 9% per year.
The detailed version
- Trustees Of The New York City District Council Of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Hot · No. 1:24-cv-01236
- Garnett
- June 27, 2024
Background
The petitioners filed a petition on February 20, 2024, asking the court to confirm an arbitration award issued on August 22, 2023. They served Al Hot, Inc., also identified in the caption by several other business names, with the petition and later supporting materials. Al Hot did not appear in the case, respond to the petition, or seek relief from the arbitration award.
Court’s Analysis
The court treated the unopposed petition like a motion for summary judgment, meaning the court could rule without a trial if the submitted materials showed that no genuine dispute over an important fact prevented judgment. After reviewing the petition and supporting materials, the court found no such dispute. It also concluded that the arbitrator’s decision had more than the minimal explanation required to support its result. The court found no basis under Section 10(a) of the Federal Arbitration Act to vacate, or set aside, the award.
Ruling and Judgment
The court granted the petition and confirmed the arbitration award in all respects. It entered judgment for the petitioners against Al Hot for $182,568.22, plus post-judgment interest. That amount consisted of the $169,632.15 award, $9,756.07 in interest from August 22, 2023, through entry of judgment at an annual rate of 6.75%, $3,100 in attorneys’ fees, and $80 in service fees and other costs. The judgment also provides for post-judgment interest at the statutory rate of 9% per year.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.