Trustees for the Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund v. M.A.B…
Trustees for the Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund, Pension Fund, Annuity Fund, and Training Program Fund et al. v. M.A.B. Renovation Group Corp.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:25-cv-08662
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Trustees for the Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund v. M.A.B. Renovation Group Corp., Judge Furman confirmed the unopposed arbitration award.
The petitioners obtained confirmation of the entire arbitration award, while M.A.B. Renovation Group Corp. did not oppose the petition. The petitioners must file a proposed judgment.
What happened
In Trustees for the Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund, Pension Fund, Annuity Fund, and Training Program Fund et al. v. M.A.B. Renovation Group Corp., the petitioners asked the court to confirm an arbitration award. M.A.B. Renovation Group Corp. was served with the petition and briefing schedule but did not respond or seek relief from the award.
The court reviewed the petition and supporting materials as it would a motion for summary judgment, even though the petition was unopposed. It found no genuine dispute about any material fact and concluded that the arbitrator’s decision had more than a minimal legal basis. The court also found no basis under the Federal Arbitration Act to vacate the award.
Judge Jesse M. Furman granted the petition to confirm the entire arbitration award. He directed the petitioners to file a proposed judgment electronically by December 11, 2025.
The detailed version
- Trustees for the Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund v. M.A.B… · No. 1:25-cv-08662
- Jesse Furman
- Dec. 5, 2025
Background
On October 20, 2025, the petitioners filed a petition to confirm an arbitration award. The court set a schedule for the petitioners’ additional supporting materials, M.A.B. Renovation Group Corp.’s opposition, and the petitioners’ reply. The petitioners served the respondent with the petition, supporting materials, and briefing schedule. The respondent’s opposition was due December 3, 2025, but the respondent did not respond or otherwise seek relief from the award.
Legal Standard and Analysis
The court treated the unopposed petition as similar to a motion for summary judgment based on the petitioners’ submissions. It found no genuine issue of material fact preventing summary judgment on all portions of the award. The court concluded that the arbitrator’s decision provided more than a “barely colorable justification” for its result. It also found no basis under Section 10(a) of the Federal Arbitration Act to vacate the award.
Ruling
The court granted the petitioners’ unopposed petition to confirm the entire arbitration award. The petitioners were directed to file their proposed judgment electronically by December 11, 2025.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.