Trustees Of The New York City District Council Of Carpenters Pension Fund v…
Trustees Of The New York City District Council Of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Annuity Fund, and Apprenticeship, Journeyman Retraining, Educational and Industry Fund v. Metro Installations Inc.
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:21-cv-04326
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Carpenters Funds v. Metro Installations: Judge Gardephe treated the unopposed petition as a motion for summary judgment.
The petitioners and Metro Installations Inc.; Metro Installations did not oppose the petition or otherwise appear.
What happened
In Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Annuity Fund, and Apprenticeship, Journeyman Retraining, Educational and Industry Fund v. Metro Installations Inc., the petitioners filed a petition and supporting submissions. The court had ordered Metro Installations to file an opposition brief by June 25, 2021.
The petitioners confirmed that Metro Installations had been served with the order, but Metro Installations did not file an opposition or otherwise appear. The court therefore deemed the petition fully submitted and treated it as an unopposed motion for summary judgment based on the petitioners’ submissions.
The order does not state that the court granted or denied the petition. Judge Paul G. Gardephe only ruled that the matter was ready for decision and would be treated as an unopposed summary-judgment motion.
The detailed version
- Trustees Of The New York City District Council Of Carpenters Pension Fund v… · No. 1:21-cv-04326
- Paul Gardephe
- Nov. 30, 2021
Background
The petitioners filed a petition against Metro Installations Inc. The opinion does not describe the petition’s requested relief or resolve the underlying dispute. On May 28, 2021, the court ordered Metro Installations to file an opposition brief by June 25, 2021. The petitioners filed confirmation that Metro Installations had been served with that order.
Failure to Respond
Metro Installations did not file an opposition brief and did not otherwise appear in the matter. The court therefore deemed the petition fully submitted.
Court’s Treatment of the Petition
The court treated the petition and accompanying submissions as an unopposed motion for summary judgment. It relied on Second Circuit authority stating that a court may treat an unopposed petition to confirm an arbitration award as similar to a summary-judgment motion based on the petitioner’s submissions.
Disposition
This order does not state that the petition was granted or denied, and it does not state a final ruling on the underlying request. Judge Paul G. Gardephe ordered only that the petition be deemed fully submitted and treated as an unopposed motion for summary judgment.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.