Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 29, 2022

Farris v. International Association of Bridge

Full caption

Farris v. International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental Reinforcing Steel Local 11

Judge
Andrew Carter
Docket
1:20-cv-01314
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
ContractArbitrationMotion to DismissCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Farris v. International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental Reinforcing Steel Local 11, Judge Carter granted dismissal and closed the case.

Who this affects

CEC Steel Limited Liability Company and Mosha C. Farris lost their challenge to the arbitration awards; the Union’s motion to dismiss was granted, CEC’s proposed amendment was denied, and the case was closed.

What happened

Farris v. International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental Reinforcing Steel Local 11 involved CEC Steel’s challenge to arbitration awards arising from its agreement with the Union. CEC alleged that the Union failed to provide skilled workers, leading CEC to use nonunion labor and make insufficient benefit-fund contributions.

The Union asked the court to dismiss the case. The court held that the collective bargaining agreement required CEC’s contract dispute to be resolved through arbitration. It also held that CEC’s remaining challenges to the arbitration awards were filed too late because the awards had been served in November 2019 and the lawsuit was filed after the 90-day deadline.

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. granted the Union’s motion to dismiss, denied CEC’s request to amend its complaint to add the Benefits Fund, and directed the Clerk to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Farris v. International Association of Bridge · No. 1:20-cv-01314
Judge
Andrew Carter
Date
Mar. 29, 2022

Background

CEC Steel Limited Liability Company sued International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental Reinforcing Steel Local 11 (the Union) to vacate two arbitration awards. The dispute arose from a project in New Jersey governed by a collective bargaining agreement. The agreement required CEC to pay union workers’ wages and contribute to a benefit fund. CEC alleged that the Union failed to provide skilled workers, so CEC used nonunion labor.

The Union and the Benefits Fund brought separate arbitration proceedings against CEC. The Union’s proceeding concerned CEC’s use of nonunion labor; the Benefits Fund’s proceeding concerned allegedly insufficient contributions. The arbitration hearings began on August 27, 2019. Mosha Farris, CEC’s representative, left before the hearings ended, and the proceedings continued. The arbitrator ruled for the Union and the Benefits Fund. CEC then sued to overturn the awards.

Court’s Analysis

The Union moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. The court considered the allegations in the amended complaint and did not consider a declaration from Mosha Farris because it contained material outside the pleadings.

The court held that CEC’s breach-of-contract claim was subject to the collective bargaining agreement’s arbitration provision. The court rejected CEC’s argument that the provision allowed it to choose whether to arbitrate, relying on decisions upholding materially identical arbitration language in collective bargaining agreements governed by the Labor Management Relations Act.

The court also held that CEC’s remaining claims seeking to void the arbitration proceedings and vacate the awards were time-barred. Under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 7511(a), a party generally must seek to vacate or modify an arbitration award within 90 days after delivery. The awards were served on CEC on November 4 and November 5, 2019, making February 3, 2020 the deadline. CEC filed this action on February 14, 2020. The court therefore dismissed the remaining claims as time-barred.

Disposition

The court concluded that adding the Benefits Fund as a party would be futile because the proposed amendment would not fix the defects in CEC’s case. Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. granted the Union’s motion to dismiss, denied CEC’s motion to amend, directed the Clerk to terminate the specified electronic filing entries, and closed the case.

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.