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. Offsite Construction Solutions LLC
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:21-cv-07766
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Offsite Construction Solutions LLC: Judge Broderick confirmed an arbitration award against Offsite.
The petitioning carpenter funds and related organizations obtained confirmation of an arbitration award against Offsite Construction Solutions LLC, which was ordered to pay the award and accruing interest.
What happened
In Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Offsite Construction Solutions LLC, the petitioners asked the court to confirm an arbitration award against Offsite totaling $398,649.02, including fees and costs.
Offsite was served, but it did not respond, request more time, or participate. A magistrate judge recommended entering judgment for the petitioners, and neither side objected.
Judge Broderick found no clear error, adopted the recommendation, granted the petition, and confirmed the arbitration award. Offsite must pay $398,649.02 plus $57.26 in interest for each day from June 12, 2021, until judgment is entered.
The detailed version
- Trustees Of The New York City District Council Of Carpenters Pension Fund v… · No. 1:21-cv-07766
- Vernon Broderick
- Feb. 14, 2022
Background
The petitioners—several New York City District Council of Carpenters funds, the Carpenter Contractor Alliance of Metropolitan New York, and the New York City District Council of Carpenters—asked the court to confirm an arbitration award against Offsite Construction Solutions LLC. They brought the petition under the Labor Management Relations Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and the Federal Arbitration Act.
The arbitration award was $398,082.02. The petitioners also sought post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs, for a requested total of $398,649.02. The petition and related materials were served on Offsite on October 7, 2021.
Proceedings
The court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Gabriel Gorenstein. He treated the petition as a motion for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence shows that the moving party is entitled to judgment without a trial, and directed Offsite to respond. Offsite did not respond, request additional time, or appear in the case.
Magistrate Judge Gorenstein issued a Report and Recommendation on January 18, 2022, recommending that the court enter judgment for the petitioners in the amount of $398,649.02. He recommended confirming the $398,082.02 arbitration award, adding interest at 5.25% per year—calculated as $57.26 per day after June 12, 2021—and awarding $490 in attorneys’ fees and $77 for service fees and legal costs. Neither party objected.
Ruling
Because there were no objections, Judge Broderick reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake. He found none and adopted it in its entirety.
The court granted the petition and confirmed the arbitration award. Petitioners were awarded $398,649.02 plus $57.26 in interest for each day from June 12, 2021, through the date the Clerk entered judgment. The court directed that the order be served on Offsite, that judgment be entered, and that the case be closed.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.
Related cases
- Drywall Tapers and Pointers of Greater New York Local Union 1974, Affiliated…Oct 2023
- Trustees of the District Council No. 9 Painting Industry Insurance Fund v…Jan 2023
- Trustees Of The New York City District Council Of Carpenters Pension Fund…Sep 2021
- Trustees Of The New York City District Council Of Carpenters Pension Fund…Nov 2020
- Trustees Of The New York City District Council Of Carpenters Pension Fund…Oct 2020
- Loebv. Hangzhou Chic