Trustees for the Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund v. Construction
Trustees for the Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund, Pension Fund, Annuity Fund and Training Program Fund v. Hilt Construction, Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:22-cv-10824
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Trustees v. Hilt Construction, Judge Schofield treated an unanswered arbitration-confirmation petition as an unopposed summary-judgment motion and ordered supporting documents.
The petitioners and Hilt Construction, Inc.; the order sets the procedure for evaluating the petition to confirm an arbitration award.
What happened
Trustees for the Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund, Pension Fund, Annuity Fund and Training Program Fund filed a petition asking the court to confirm an arbitration award. Hilt Construction, Inc. was served but did not appear.
The court ordered that the unanswered petition be treated as an unopposed motion for summary judgment, rather than entering a default judgment. It directed the petitioners to file additional supporting documents, including a declaration referenced in the case record, by April 21, 2023.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield did not decide whether to confirm the arbitration award in this order; she set the procedure for considering the petition.
The detailed version
- Trustees for the Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund v. Construction · No. 1:22-cv-10824
- Lorna Schofield
- Apr. 18, 2023
Background
The petitioners filed a petition to confirm an arbitration award on December 22, 2022. Electronic summonses were issued to Hilt Construction, Inc. the next day. The docket states that personal service was completed on January 17, 2023, and that the petitioners later filed proof of service, including additional proof through the U.S. Postal Service. Hilt Construction did not appear.
Court’s action
The court stated that default judgments are generally inappropriate in proceedings to confirm or overturn arbitration awards. Instead, an unanswered petition should be handled as an unopposed motion for summary judgment, meaning a request for judgment without a trial when the relevant facts and law allegedly support it. The court therefore ordered that the petition be treated as an unopposed summary-judgment motion.
The court also ordered the petitioners to file further supporting documentation by April 21, 2023, including the declaration of Haluk Savei, which the order said was referenced in the docket but was not filed there.
Result and scope
This order did not grant or deny the petition and did not decide whether the arbitration award should be confirmed. It established how the court would consider the unanswered petition and required additional documentation.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.