Arshad v. Transportation Systems, Inc.

Background

Muhammad Arshad petitioned to confirm an arbitration award against Transportation Systems, Inc.; Executive Transportation Group Ltd.; Love Limousine NYC, Ltd., doing business as Blue Line; John Acierno; Jeffrey Acierno; Fred Solomon; and Haider “Wally” Haidere. The petition was not opposed by Transportation Systems, Executive Transportation Group, Love Limousine, John Acierno, Jeffrey Acierno, or Fred Solomon. The opinion states that Haidere was represented separately, that the arbitrator made no award against him, and that he filed no submission on the petition.

Arshad originally brought claims alleging that he was harassed and discriminated against because he is “Asian,” a “Sunni,” and “originally from Pakistan,” and that he faced retaliation after reporting the harassment. The claims arose under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VII, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Because the parties’ Subscription Agreement contained an arbitration clause, the court previously compelled arbitration.

The arbitrator ruled for the respondents on all of Arshad’s original claims. During the arbitration, Arshad added a post-termination retaliation claim concerning an alleged refusal to offer him a $5,700 settlement unless he also settled the present lawsuit. The arbitrator ruled for Arshad on that additional claim and awarded him $5,750 plus statutory interest. The final order stated that no other damages were awarded and that other claims not referenced in the award were dismissed.

Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Arshad sought $14,935 for attorney’s fees and costs incurred in this court, including $14,535 for 32.3 hours of attorney work and a $400 filing fee. He sought payment for work on the original and amended complaints, his response to the motion to compel arbitration, and the petition to confirm the award.

The court applied the general federal rule that each party pays its own attorney’s fees unless a contract or statute provides otherwise. It rejected Arshad’s request under the New York City Human Rights Law because he did not prevail on any claim under that law in this court. The court also observed that the claim on which Arshad prevailed in arbitration had not been included in the pleadings filed in this court.

The court further held that Arshad could not recover fees for the arbitration because the arbitrator had rejected his fee request and Arshad had not timely challenged that decision. The court had previously ruled that a challenge to the arbitration award had to be filed within three months and that Arshad’s letter seeking post-arbitration briefing did not meet that requirement. Finally, the court found no basis for fees incurred in seeking confirmation because the respondents had agreed to pay the entire arbitration award and had not unjustifiably refused to comply with it.

Disposition

Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald denied Arshad’s application for attorney’s fees and costs in its entirety. The court confirmed the unopposed arbitration award of $5,750 plus statutory interest, directed the Clerk to enter judgment, and ordered the case closed.