Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 26, 2024

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

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. Al Hot, Inc.

Judge
Garnett
Docket
1:24-cv-01236
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureArbitration
In one sentence

In Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters v. Al Hot, Judge Garnett set deadlines for papers concerning an arbitration award.

Who this affects

The order affects the petitioners seeking confirmation of the arbitration award and Al Hot, Inc., which may file an opposition. It requires the petitioners to provide service and meet specified filing deadlines.

What happened

In Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters v. Al Hot, the petitioners asked the court to confirm an arbitration award. The opinion does not describe the underlying dispute or award.

The court said confirmation proceedings are treated like motions for summary judgment. It ordered the petitioners to file and serve any additional supporting materials by March 18, 2024. Al Hot, Inc.’s opposition, if any, was due April 8, and the petitioners’ reply, if any, was due April 15.

The court also required the petitioners to serve the petition, supporting papers, and the order under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and to file proof of service. Judge Margaret M. Garnett issued the order; it set a schedule and 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. Hot · No. 1:24-cv-01236
Judge
Garnett
Date
Feb. 26, 2024

Background

On February 20, 2024, the petitioners filed a petition asking the court to confirm an arbitration award. The opinion does not provide details about the arbitration, the award, or the parties’ underlying dispute.

Court’s Analysis

The court stated that proceedings to confirm an arbitration award are treated as akin to a motion for summary judgment. The order did not analyze the validity of the award or decide the petition.

Order

The court ordered the petitioners to file any additional materials supporting confirmation and serve them by March 18, 2024. Al Hot, Inc.’s opposition, if any, was due April 8, 2024, and the petitioners’ reply, if any, was due April 15, 2024.

The court also ordered the petitioners to serve the petition, all supporting papers, and the order on Al Hot, Inc. under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by March 18, 2024. The petitioners had to file an affidavit confirming service by March 19, 2024. The order therefore established filing and service deadlines rather than resolving the request to confirm the arbitration award.

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.