District Council No. 9 International Union of Painters and Allied Trades v…
District Council No. 9 International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, A.F.L.- C.I.O. v. Future Shock Architectural Metals & Glass
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:22-cv-00211
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In District Council No. 9 v. Future Shock, Judge Abrams set briefing deadlines for a petition to confirm an arbitration award.
District Council No. 9 International Union of Painters and Allied Trades and Future Shock Architectural Metals & Glass; the order sets the schedule for their confirmation proceeding.
What happened
District Council No. 9 International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, A.F.L.-C.I.O. sued Future Shock Architectural Metals & Glass, also identified as Future Shock Architectural Metals & Glass Corp., seeking confirmation of an arbitration award. The opinion says the complaint was filed on January 10, 2022, and that no affidavit showing service had been docketed.
The court explained that proceedings to confirm arbitration awards are handled similarly to motions for summary judgment. It directed the petitioner to file and serve any additional supporting materials and set deadlines for the respondent’s opposition and the petitioner’s reply.
Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered the petitioner to serve the order on the respondent. The order did not decide whether to confirm the arbitration award.
The detailed version
- District Council No. 9 International Union of Painters and Allied Trades v… · No. 1:22-cv-00211
- Ronnie Abrams
- Jan. 19, 2022
Background
The petitioner filed a complaint seeking confirmation of an arbitration award. The opinion states that the complaint was filed on January 10, 2022. At the time of the order, the petitioner had not docketed an affidavit of service.
Court’s explanation
The court stated that proceedings to confirm arbitration awards must be treated similarly to a motion for summary judgment. A motion for summary judgment asks whether the available materials show that a party is entitled to judgment without a trial.
Order
The court ordered the petitioner to file and serve any additional materials supporting its petition by February 1, 2022. The respondent’s opposition, if any, was due February 22, 2022, and the petitioner’s reply, if any, was due March 1, 2022. The court also ordered the petitioner to serve a copy of the order on the respondent. The order did not rule on whether the arbitration award should be confirmed.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.