Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled Oct. 26, 2023

Trustees for The Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund v. USA Roofing Co…

Full caption

Trustees for The Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund, Pension Fund, Annuity Fund and Training Program Fund v. USA Roofing Co. Corp.

Judge
Subramanian
Docket
1:22-cv-09953
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
ArbitrationSummary JudgmentContract
In one sentence

In Mason Tenders Funds v. USA Roofing, Judge Subramanian confirmed the entire unopposed arbitration award after finding no basis to vacate it.

Who this affects

The petitioners and USA Roofing Co. Corp.; the entire arbitration award was confirmed against USA Roofing.

What happened

In Trustees for The Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund, Pension Fund, Annuity Fund and Training Program Fund v. USA Roofing Co. Corp., the petitioners asked the court to confirm an arbitration award. USA Roofing did not respond, appear, or seek relief from the award.

The court treated the unopposed petition like a request for summary judgment, meaning it decided whether the petitioners were entitled to judgment based on their submissions. After reviewing the petition and supporting materials, the court found no genuine dispute that prevented confirming the award. The arbitration decision also showed that USA Roofing had consented to the award.

The court granted the petitioners’ unopposed petition to confirm the entire award and found no basis under Section 10(a) of the Federal Arbitration Act to vacate it. Judge Arun Subramanian directed the petitioners to file a proposed judgment.

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. USA Roofing Co… · No. 1:22-cv-09953
Judge
Subramanian
Date
Oct. 26, 2023

Background

On November 28, 2022, the petitioners filed a petition asking the court to confirm an arbitration award. The court later set a schedule for additional supporting materials, USA Roofing’s opposition, and the petitioners’ reply. The petitioners served USA Roofing with the petition, supporting materials, and briefing schedule. USA Roofing’s opposition was due October 6, 2023, but it did not respond, appear in the case, or seek relief from the arbitration award.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that an unopposed petition to confirm an arbitration award must still be evaluated on the petitioners’ submissions. It treated the petition as similar to a motion for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence shows that the moving party is entitled to judgment without a trial. After reviewing the petition and supporting materials, the court found no genuine issue of material fact preventing summary judgment as to any part of the award. The court stated that the arbitrator’s decision provided more than a barely colorable justification for its result and reflected that USA Roofing had consented to the award.

The court also found no basis under Section 10(a) of the Federal Arbitration Act to vacate the award. The opinion does not describe the award’s underlying terms.

Ruling

Judge Arun Subramanian granted the petitioners’ unopposed petition to confirm the entire arbitration award. The petitioners were directed to file their proposed judgment electronically by November 9, 2023.

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.