Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled Feb. 23, 2023

Drywall Tapers and Pointers of Greater New York Local Union 1974 v. Tiger…

Full caption

Drywall Tapers and Pointers of Greater New York Local Union 1974, Affiliated with International Union of Allied Painters and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO v. Tiger Contracting Corp.

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:21-cv-07543
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
ArbitrationContractCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Drywall Tapers v. Tiger Contracting, Judge Broderick adopted an unopposed recommendation confirming an arbitration award and entering a $23,037 judgment.

Who this affects

Drywall Tapers and Pointers of Greater New York Local Union 1974 received a judgment against Tiger Contracting Corp. for $23,037, plus post-judgment interest, consisting of $20,000 under the arbitration award, $2,520 in fees, and $517 in costs.

What happened

Drywall Tapers and Pointers of Greater New York Local Union 1974 asked the court to confirm an arbitration award against Tiger Contracting Corp. Tiger was served and given opportunities to respond but did not oppose the petition or request more time.

Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn recommended granting the petition and awarding $20,000 under the arbitration award, $2,520 in fees, and $517 in costs, for a total of $23,037 plus interest after judgment. Neither party objected to that recommendation.

Judge Vernon S. Broderick reviewed the recommendation for clear error, found none, and adopted it against Tiger Contracting Corp. He directed the Clerk to enter the judgment and terminate the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Drywall Tapers and Pointers of Greater New York Local Union 1974 v. Tiger… · No. 1:21-cv-07543
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
Feb. 23, 2023

Background

The petitioner filed a petition on September 9, 2021, asking the court to confirm an arbitration award. Tiger Contracting Corp. was served on September 14, 2021, and was ordered to file any opposition by November 4, 2021. It did not oppose the petition or request an extension.

The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn for a report and recommendation. She gave Tiger Contracting another opportunity to file an opposition by October 5, 2022, but Tiger again did not respond. Judge Netburn recommended granting the petition and awarding the petitioner $20,000 under the arbitration award, $2,520 in fees, and $517 in costs. The recommended total judgment was $23,037, plus post-judgment interest.

Review of the Recommendation

Because neither party objected to the report and recommendation, Judge Broderick reviewed it for clear error. This means he examined the recommendation to determine whether it contained an obvious mistake. He found no clear error.

Ruling

Judge Broderick adopted Judge Netburn’s report and recommendation against Tiger Contracting Corp. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment consistent with the recommendation and terminate the action. The opinion does not describe the underlying dispute that led to the arbitration award.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.