Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 21, 2023

Trustees for The Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund v. Baroco…

Full caption

Trustees for The Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund, Pension Fund, Annuity Fund, and Training Program Fund v. Baroco Contracting Corp.

Judge
Rochon
Docket
1:23-cv-05106
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureArbitration
In one sentence

Trustees v. Baroco: Judge Rochon set briefing and service deadlines in a proceeding to confirm an arbitration award.

Who this affects

The petitioners and Baroco Contracting Corp. were affected by the court’s briefing and service deadlines in the arbitration-award confirmation proceeding.

What happened

In Trustees for The Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund, Pension Fund, Annuity Fund, and Training Program Fund v. Baroco Contracting Corp., the petitioners asked the court to confirm an arbitration award.

The petitioners had not yet filed proof that they served the complaint. The court treated the confirmation proceeding like a motion for summary judgment and set deadlines for supporting materials, opposition, and reply.

Judge Rochon also ordered service of the order and prompt filing of proof of service for the complaint. The order did not decide whether to confirm the arbitration award.

The detailed version

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

Case
Trustees for The Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund v. Baroco… · No. 1:23-cv-05106
Judge
Rochon
Date
June 21, 2023

Background

On June 16, 2023, Petitioners filed a complaint seeking confirmation of an arbitration award. The opinion states that Petitioners had not yet docketed an affidavit of service for the complaint.

Court’s Orders

The court explained that proceedings to confirm arbitration awards are treated like motions for summary judgment. It ordered Petitioners to file and serve any additional materials supporting the petition by July 7, 2023. Respondent’s opposition, if any, was due July 28, 2023, and Petitioners’ reply, if any, was due August 18, 2023.

The court also ordered Petitioner to serve Respondent with a copy of the order and file an affidavit of service. It further ordered Petitioner to promptly file the affidavit of service for the complaint. The order did not rule on whether the arbitration award should be confirmed.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.