Young v. Laurence A. Pagnoni & Associates, Inc.

Background

Grant Young petitioned under Section 9 of the Federal Arbitration Act to confirm an arbitration award against Laurence A. Pagnoni & Associates, Inc. (LAPA) and Michael Lee Taylor. The parties had entered into a confidential settlement agreement that required payments on a schedule and provided for binding arbitration of disputes. The agreement stated that a material breach could entitle Young to recover 125% of the unpaid settlement amount, plus attorney’s fees and costs in specified circumstances.

After making five payments, the respondents failed to make the sixth payment. Young sent three notices of default, which went unanswered. He then demanded arbitration. All parties appeared at the February 14, 2024 arbitration, and arbitrator Martin F. Scheinman issued an award and order on February 21, 2024.

The arbitration award required the respondents to pay the remaining settlement amount of $79,548 in three payments. It also stated that a further default would allow Young to seek 125% of the unpaid amount, plus 9% interest, attorney’s fees, and costs. Young submitted evidence that the respondents made no payments after the award. Although the court gave them notice and multiple opportunities to respond, the respondents did not oppose the petition or otherwise seek relief from the award.

Court’s Analysis

The court treated the petition as comparable to a summary-judgment motion, meaning it examined whether the record showed any genuine dispute requiring a trial. Federal law requires confirmation of an arbitration award when the parties agreed to court entry of judgment, unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected under the statute. Judicial review is highly deferential. The court found no genuine dispute of material fact and concluded that the award had more than the required colorable justification under the parties’ settlement agreement.

The court upheld the award’s provision allowing recovery of 125% of the unpaid amount. It also concluded that 9% interest was appropriate under New York law. The court found that the respondents had not complied with the award and had offered no explanation for their failure to do so, supporting an award of attorney’s fees and costs.

The court reviewed counsel’s billing records and found the requested $8,360 in attorney’s fees reasonable. The request was based on 20.9 hours at an hourly rate of $400. The court also found the requested $551.35 in costs reasonable, including filing, service, postage, and private-investigator expenses.

Disposition

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon GRANTED Young’s unopposed petition to confirm the arbitration award. The court confirmed the February 21, 2024 award and entered judgment for Young against the respondents for $99,435, representing 125% of $79,548, plus 9% interest, as well as $8,360 in attorney’s fees and $551.35 in costs. The court requested that the Clerk of Court close the case.

The opinion contains an apparent inconsistency about the starting date for the 9% interest: its discussion refers to interest running from February 21, 2024, while the conclusion states that interest runs from February 1, 2024, until the date of the order.