Trustees Of The New York City District Council Of Carpenters Pension Fund v. M…
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. M & RR Construction Corp.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:22-cv-06467
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Trustees v. M & RR Construction, Magistrate Judge Cave extended the respondent’s deadline to answer a petition seeking confirmation of an arbitration award.
The order directly affected M & RR Construction Corp. by extending its deadline to respond, and it required the petitioners to serve the order and file proof of service.
What happened
Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters funds and related entities asked the court to confirm an arbitration award against M & RR Construction Corp. The petition was served on August 2, 2022, but M & RR had not appeared or responded.
The court extended M & RR’s response deadline to September 9, 2022. It also ordered the petitioners to promptly serve the order and file proof of service by August 29, 2022.
Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave cautioned that failing to respond could lead the court to treat the petition as an unopposed motion for summary judgment. The order did not decide whether to confirm the arbitration award.
The detailed version
- Trustees Of The New York City District Council Of Carpenters Pension Fund v. M… · No. 1:22-cv-06467
- Vernon Broderick
- Aug. 25, 2022
Background
The petitioners filed a petition asking the court to confirm an arbitration award. The matter had been referred to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave to issue a report and recommendation concerning the petition. The petition was served on M & RR Construction Corp. on August 2, 2022. The respondent had not appeared or responded by the date of this order.
Order
The court extended the respondent’s deadline to respond, effective as of the original deadline, to Friday, September 9, 2022. The court cautioned that failing to appear or respond could result in treating the petition as an unopposed motion for summary judgment. The court also ordered the petitioners to promptly serve a copy of the order on the respondent and file proof of service by Monday, August 29, 2022.
What the Order Did Not Decide
The order did not decide whether the arbitration award should be confirmed. It was a scheduling and service order concerning the respondent’s opportunity to respond.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.