Citibank, N.A. v. McPartland
- Andrew Carter
- 1:20-cv-08673
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Citibank v. McPartland, Judge Carter confirmed an arbitration award requiring McPartland to pay Citibank $201,665.79 after he did not participate.
Citibank, N.A. obtained confirmation of its arbitration award and a judgment for $201,665.79 against James McPartland, who did not participate in the arbitration or respond to the court case.
What happened
Citibank, N.A. asked the court to confirm an arbitration award against James McPartland. The dispute concerned McPartland’s failure to repay a minimum incentive payment after he voluntarily left his job within one year.
McPartland did not appear at the arbitration hearing or respond to Citibank’s court case. The arbitrator awarded Citibank $201,665.79, including the principal amount, interest, attorneys’ fees, and expenses.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. granted Citibank’s petition, confirmed the arbitration award, directed entry of judgment for $201,665.79, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Citibank, N.A. v. McPartland · No. 1:20-cv-08673
- Andrew Carter
- Mar. 31, 2022
Background
Citibank, N.A. brought a proceeding to confirm and enforce an arbitration award against James McPartland. McPartland began working for Citibank as a Home Lending Officer on May 10, 2019. The dispute concerned his alleged breach of a Minimum Incentive Award agreement. According to the opinion, McPartland voluntarily resigned within one year of being hired and did not repay the incentive award as required by that agreement.
McPartland had agreed to arbitrate employment-related disputes under Citibank’s Employment Arbitration Policy. Although he had notice of the arbitration hearing, he did not appear. The arbitrator proceeded without him and entered an award for Citibank on July 27, 2020.
Arbitration award and court proceeding
The arbitrator awarded Citibank $157,825 in principal, $14,204.25 in pre-award interest, and $29,636.54 in attorneys’ fees and expenses, for a total of $201,665.79. Citibank filed its petition to confirm the award, filed an affidavit showing service, obtained a clerk’s certificate of default, and moved for a default judgment. McPartland did not respond to the court action.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that, in proceedings to confirm or overturn an arbitration award, a default judgment is generally not appropriate. Instead, when the opposing party does not respond, the court treats the petition as an unopposed motion for summary judgment, meaning the court reviews the submitting party’s evidence and legal arguments. The court stated that it would uphold the arbitrator’s decision if there was at least a barely colorable justification for the award.
After reviewing Citibank’s submissions, the court found more than a colorable justification for the arbitrator’s result. McPartland had made no objections to the motion or to the arbitration’s conduct.
Disposition
The court granted Citibank’s petition and confirmed the arbitration award. It directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in Citibank’s favor for $201,665.79, terminate the motion at ECF No. 14, and close the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.
Related cases
- Trustees for The Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund, Pension Fund…Apr 2022
- Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund…Apr 2022
- Trustees Of The New York City District Council Of Carpenters Pension Fund…Feb 2020
- Trustees ofv. AMG
- Trustees Of The New York City District Council Of Carpenters Pension Fund…Apr 2022
- Trustees Of The New York City District Council Of Carpenters Pension Fund…Apr 2022