Duffy v. Lydell Jewelry Design Studio

Background

Amy Claire Duffy petitioned under the New York Arbitration Act and the Federal Arbitration Act to confirm an arbitration award against Lydell Jewelry Design Studio, LLC, Global Accessories Group, LLC, and John M. Higgins. On July 10, 2019, the arbitrator issued an interim award of $144,887.20. On October 11, 2019, the arbitrator issued a final award requiring the respondents, jointly and severally, to pay $347,635, consisting of:

- $172,059.20 in attorney’s fees; - $4,713.27 in costs; - $25,675.33 in prejudgment interest; - the previously awarded $144,887.20; and - $300 for the portion of American Arbitration Association fees exceeding Duffy’s previously apportioned costs.

The award also required interest at a 9% annual rate on the listed amounts other than the $300 reimbursement, beginning on the date of the award until payment. Duffy filed her petition on January 14, 2020. After the court requested additional information about federal diversity jurisdiction, she filed an amended petition. The respondents did not respond to either petition and did not appear or otherwise participate.

Jurisdiction and standard

The court determined that it had subject-matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. The amended petition alleged that Duffy was a citizen of New York; that Lydell was wholly owned by Global; and that Global’s members were Higgins, a citizen of Connecticut, and Richard Starke, a citizen of Florida. The court also found that venue was proper because a substantial part of the events occurred in the Southern District of New York, including Duffy’s employment there. It found personal jurisdiction because the parties’ agreement consented to New York courts as the exclusive venue for disputes arising from the agreement.

Under Second Circuit law, an uncontested petition to confirm an arbitration award is treated like a motion for summary judgment based on the petitioner’s submissions. Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute about an important fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court explained that the burden for confirming an arbitration award is not onerous and that an award should be confirmed if a basis for the arbitrator’s decision can be inferred from the case’s facts.

Ruling

The court treated the petition and supporting materials as an unopposed motion for summary judgment. It concluded that there was no genuine dispute about any material fact and that Duffy was entitled to confirmation of the arbitration award. The court also held that Duffy was entitled to attorney’s fees and costs incurred in connection with the petition and amended petition because the respondents refused to comply with the award without challenging or seeking to vacate it in court.

The court GRANTED the amended petition. It confirmed the award and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in Duffy’s favor and against the respondents for:

The court directed the Clerk to terminate pending motions, adjourn deadlines, and close the case.