Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled Aug. 16, 2021

Trustees for The Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund v. Carlito's…

Full caption

Trustees for The Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund, Pension Fund, Annuity Fund, and Training Program Fund v. Carlito's Contracting Corp.

Judge
Victor Marrero
Docket
1:20-cv-05210
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
ArbitrationContractSummary JudgmentCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Trustees v. Carlito’s Contracting, Judge Marrero confirmed a $11,493.83 arbitration award, added post-judgment interest, and did not award petition-related attorneys’ fees.

Who this affects

The Trustees for the Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund, Pension Fund, Annuity Fund, Training Program Fund, and the Mason Tenders District Council of Greater New York obtained confirmation of an arbitration award against Carlito’s Contracting Corp. for $11,493.83 plus post-judgment interest. The Trustees did not receive attorneys’ fees and costs for bringing the petition.

What happened

Trustees for the Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund and related funds asked the court to confirm an arbitration award against Carlito’s Contracting Corp. The petition was unopposed.

The court treated the petition as an unopposed motion for summary judgment and found that the arbitrator acted within the arbitrator’s authority. It confirmed the award for $11,493.83 plus post-judgment interest.

Judge Victor Marrero did not award attorneys’ fees and costs for bringing the petition because the request lacked time records or other supporting information. The court directed the Clerk to close the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Trustees for The Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund v. Carlito's… · No. 1:20-cv-05210
Judge
Victor Marrero
Date
Aug. 16, 2021

Background

The Trustees for the Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund, Pension Fund, Annuity Fund, Training Program Fund, and the Mason Tenders District Council of Greater New York brought a petition against Carlito’s Contracting Corp. to confirm an arbitration award. The petition was unopposed.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that an arbitration award generally must be confirmed if the arbitrator acted within the scope of the arbitrator’s authority and the award was based on the parties’ agreement. The court treated the unopposed petition as a motion for summary judgment, which is a request for judgment without a trial when the relevant facts do not require one. After reviewing the petition and supporting documents, the court found that the arbitrator acted within the arbitrator’s authority.

The court also found that post-judgment interest was warranted. It did not award attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in bringing the petition because the Trustees had not supported that request with time records or other required documentation.

Ruling

Judge Victor Marrero ordered that the petition was GRANTED in the amount of $11,493.83 plus post-judgment interest. The Clerk of Court was directed to dismiss all pending motions and close the case. The court did not award the requested attorneys’ fees and costs for the petition.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.