Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 12, 2023

Trustees Of The New York City District Council Of Carpenters Pension Fund v…

Full caption

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. Simpson & Brown Inc

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:23-cv-01121
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureArbitration
In one sentence

In Trustees v. Simpson & Brown, Judge Wang extended the response deadline in an arbitration-award petition and ordered additional service.

Who this affects

The order affected Simpson & Brown Inc. by extending its deadline to respond and requiring it to appear with counsel, and directed the Funds to provide additional service.

What happened

The Funds asked the court to confirm an arbitration award against Simpson & Brown Inc. The company was served, but it had not filed a response or appeared when the court issued this order.

The court extended Simpson & Brown’s deadline to answer the petition to May 12, 2023. It warned that the petition might be treated as unopposed if the company did not appear with a lawyer and respond by that date.

Judge Ona T. Wang also ordered the Funds to serve the order at all known addresses for Simpson & Brown. This order did not decide whether the arbitration award should be confirmed.

The detailed version

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

Case
Trustees Of The New York City District Council Of Carpenters Pension Fund v… · No. 1:23-cv-01121
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
Apr. 12, 2023

Background

The Funds petitioned the court to confirm an arbitration award against Simpson & Brown Inc. The court had referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang for a report and recommendation.

An electronic summons was issued on February 10,

  1. The summons was returned executed on February 13, and the Funds filed an affidavit stating that they had served the petition and related papers on February
  2. Simpson & Brown’s response was initially due March 6,
  3. The company had not filed a response or otherwise appeared by the date of this order.

Order

The court extended Simpson & Brown’s time to answer the petition to May 12, 2023. The order stated that, if Simpson & Brown did not appear with counsel and file a response by that date, the court might consider the petition unopposed. The order also directed the Funds to serve a copy of the order at all known addresses of Simpson & Brown.

The order did not rule on whether the arbitration award should be confirmed. Its footnote states that a corporation may not appear without a lawyer.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.