Trustees Of The New York City District Council Of Carpenters Pension Fund v. CM…
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. CM Ashland Construction Corp.
- Ho
- 1:25-cv-03388
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Trustees Of The New York City District Council Of Carpenters Pension Fund v. CM Ashland, Judge Ho set deadlines for an arbitration-confirmation petition.
The petitioners and CM Ashland Construction Corp.; the order sets their filing, response, reply, and service deadlines.
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. CM Ashland Construction Corp., the petitioners asked the court to confirm an arbitration award.
The court explained that requests to confirm arbitration awards are handled similarly to motions for summary judgment, which ask whether the available materials show that a party is entitled to judgment. The order did not decide whether to confirm the award.
Judge Dale E. Ho ordered the petitioners to file and serve any additional supporting materials by May 19, 2025. CM Ashland’s opposition, if any, was due June 9, and the petitioners’ reply, if any, was due June 16. The petitioners also had to serve the petition, supporting papers, and the order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and file proof of service by May 5.
The detailed version
- Trustees Of The New York City District Council Of Carpenters Pension Fund v. CM… · No. 1:25-cv-03388
- Ho
- Apr. 28, 2025
Background
On April 24, 2025, the petitioners filed a petition asking the court to confirm an arbitration award. The opinion does not describe the underlying dispute, the arbitration award’s terms, or the parties’ arguments about confirmation.
Court’s reasoning
The court stated that proceedings to confirm an arbitration award must be treated as similar to a motion for summary judgment. The order addressed filing and service requirements; it did not analyze the validity of the arbitration award or decide whether confirmation was warranted.
Order
The court ordered the petitioners to file and serve any additional materials supporting the petition by May 19, 2025. CM Ashland’s opposition, if any, was due June 9, 2025, and the petitioners’ reply, if any, was due June 16, 2025.
The petitioners also had to serve the petition, all supporting papers, and the order on CM Ashland under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They had to file an affidavit confirming that service by May 5, 2025. The order did not grant or deny the petition to confirm the arbitration award.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.