Trustees Of The New York City District Council Of Carpenters Pension Fund v…

Background

On November 19, 2024, the petitioners filed a petition asking the court to confirm an arbitration award. The court set a schedule for additional supporting materials, Ratto Construction Co.’s opposition, and the petitioners’ reply. The petitioners served Ratto with the petition, supporting materials, and briefing schedule.

Ratto did not file an opposition by the original deadline. The court granted a courtesy extension to February 11, 2025, and warned that it would treat the petition as unopposed if Ratto did not respond. Ratto neither responded to the petition nor sought other relief from the award.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that an unopposed petition to confirm an arbitration award must still be reviewed like a motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision entered when the materials show that no genuine dispute of important facts requires a trial.

After reviewing the petition and supporting materials, the court found no genuine issue of material fact preventing summary judgment as to all portions of the award. The court stated that the arbitrator’s decision provided more than a “barely colorable justification” for its result. The court also found no basis under Section 10(a) of the Federal Arbitration Act to vacate, or cancel, the award.

Fees and Interest

The court granted the petitioners’ request for attorneys’ fees and costs. It found that the petitioners had shown that the hours worked, rates charged, and litigation costs were reasonable and necessary.

The court also granted prejudgment interest but reduced the requested rate. Rather than the petitioners’ requested 10.5% rate, the court awarded interest at 9%, citing the common practice in the Second Circuit and the absence of a reason to use a different rate.

Disposition

The court granted the petitioners’ unopposed petition to confirm the arbitration award. It granted attorneys’ fees and costs, granted prejudgment interest at 9%, and directed the petitioners to file a proposed judgment by February 26, 2025. The opinion does not state the amount or underlying subject of the arbitration award.