The District Council of New York City and Vicinity of the United Brotherhood of…
The District Council of New York City and Vicinity of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. Infinity Management Corp.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:19-cv-10654
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In District Council v. Infinity Management, Judge Woods ordered briefing and supporting materials for a petition to confirm an arbitration award.
The District Council, as petitioner, had to file and serve supporting materials and meet the stated deadlines. Infinity Management Corp. and Tash Management Corp., as respondents, were given a deadline to oppose the petition.
What happened
The District Council of New York City and Vicinity of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America asked the court to confirm an arbitration award against Infinity Management Corp. and Tash Management Corp.
The court said that petitions to confirm arbitration awards are handled similarly to requests for summary judgment. It required the petitioner to submit a statement of undisputed facts and supporting materials, including proof that its exhibits were accurate copies.
Judge Gregory H. Woods set deadlines for the petitioner’s filings and service, the respondents’ opposition, and any reply. The court did not decide whether to confirm the arbitration award.
The detailed version
- The District Council of New York City and Vicinity of the United Brotherhood of… · No. 1:19-cv-10654
- Gregory Woods
- Nov. 20, 2019
Background
The District Council of New York City and Vicinity of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America filed a petition on November 18, 2019, asking the court to confirm an arbitration award. Infinity Management Corp. and Tash Management Corp. were identified as respondents.
Court’s directions
The court stated that a petition to confirm an arbitration award must be treated similarly to a motion for summary judgment. The court therefore ordered the petitioner to file and serve a statement under Local Civil Rule 56.1 and any additional materials supporting the petition. Those materials could include affidavits or declarations confirming that the petition’s exhibits were true and correct copies of what they purported to be.
The petitioner’s filing was due December 4, 2019. The respondents’ opposition was due December 25, 2019, and the petitioner’s reply, if any, was due January 8, 2020. The petitioner also had to serve the petition and supporting materials on the respondents by November 27, 2019, and file proof of service with the court by December 1, 2019.
Disposition
Judge Gregory H. Woods entered an order setting these filing and service requirements. The opinion does not state that the court confirmed or rejected the arbitration award; it only established the next procedural steps.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.