Trustees for The Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund v. Carlito's…
Trustees for The Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund, Pension Fund, Annuity Fund, and Training Program Fund v. Carlito's Contracting Corp.
- Victor Marrero
- 1:20-cv-05210
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
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.
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
- Trustees for The Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund v. Carlito's… · No. 1:20-cv-05210
- Victor Marrero
- 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.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.
Related cases
- Trustees Of The New York City District Council Of Carpenters Pension Fund…Mar 2022
- Trustees of the District Council No. 9 Painting Industry Insurance Fund and…Aug 2021
- Trustees Of The New York City District Council Of Carpenters Pension Fund…Oct 2021
- Trustees for The Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund, Pension Fund…Aug 2021
- Trustees Of The New York City District Council Of Carpenters Pension Fund…Apr 2021
- Trustees ofv. AMG