Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 8, 2022

District Council No. 9 International Union of Painters and Allied Trades…

Full caption

District Council No. 9 International Union of Painters and Allied Trades AFL-CIO v. Future Shock Architectural Metal & Glass

Judge
Lewis Liman
Docket
1:22-cv-02859
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
ArbitrationCivil Procedure
In one sentence

District Council No. 9 v. Future Shock, Judge Liman ordered briefing and service for an arbitration-award confirmation petition.

Who this affects

The petitioner, District Council No. 9 International Union of Painters and Allied Trades AFL-CIO, and the respondent, Future Shock Architectural Metal & Glass.

What happened

In District Council No. 9 International Union of Painters and Allied Trades AFL-CIO v. Future Shock Architectural Metal & Glass, the petitioner asked the court to confirm an arbitration award.

The court ordered the petitioner to file and serve any additional supporting materials by April 25, 2022. It set May 25 for any opposition and June 1 for any reply, and ordered the petitioner to serve the petition and the order on the respondent.

The order did not decide whether to confirm the arbitration award. Judge Lewis J. Liman issued the scheduling and service orders on April 8, 2022.

The detailed version

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

Case
District Council No. 9 International Union of Painters and Allied Trades… · No. 1:22-cv-02859
Judge
Lewis Liman
Date
Apr. 8, 2022

Background

On April 7, 2022, the petitioner filed a petition seeking confirmation of an arbitration award.

Court’s Order

The court stated that proceedings to confirm arbitration awards must be treated like a motion for summary judgment. It ordered the petitioner to file and serve any additional materials supporting the petition by April 25, 2022. Any opposition from the respondent was due May 25, 2022, and any reply from the petitioner was due June 1, 2022.

The court also ordered the petitioner to serve the petition and the order on the respondent. The order did not rule on whether the arbitration award should be confirmed.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.