United States District Court, E.D. New York
Trustees of the Northeast Carpenters Health, Pension, Annuity, Apprenticeship, and Labor Management Cooperation Funds, Petitioners,
Patt Construction, Inc., Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
F. BIANCO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
of the Northeast Carpenters Health, Pension, Annuity,
Apprenticeship, and Labor Management Cooperation Funds f/k/a
the Empire State Carpenters Annuity, Apprenticeship,
Labor-Management Cooperation, Pension and Welfare Funds
(hereinafter “petitioners” or the
“Funds”) commenced this action to confirm an
arbitration award obtained against Patt Construction, Inc.
(hereinafter “respondent” or “Patt
Construction”). Petitioners also moved to recover
attorney's fees and costs in connection with this action.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants
petitioners' motion to confirm the arbitration award and
grants petitioners' motion for fees and costs.
following facts are taken from the Funds' petition to
confirm an arbitration award (“Pet.”) and
accompanying exhibits. (ECF No. 1.)
Construction is bound to certain collective bargaining
agreements (the “CBAs”) with the Northeast
Regional Council of Carpenters (the “Union”).
(Pet. ¶¶ 7-12.) The CBAs require Patt Construction
to make contributions to the Funds for all work performed
within the trade and geographical jurisdiction of the Union.
(Id. at ¶ 13.)
Funds also established a Joint Policy for Collection of
Delinquent Contributions (the “Collection
Policy”). (Id. at ¶ 15; Ex. E, ECF No.
1-5.) The Collection Policy requires that the employer submit
to a payroll audit upon request of the Funds. (Pet. ¶
16; Ex. E, art. 4.1.) The Collection Policy further provides
that if the employer fails to remit contributions to the
Funds, the matter shall be subject to arbitration. (Pet.
¶ 22; Ex. E, art. 2.2.) If the employer is found
deficient in its contributions, the Collection Policy awards,
in addition to the deficiency, interest (Pet. ¶ 17; Ex.
E, art. 2.1(C)), liquidated damages (Pet. ¶ 18; Ex. E.,
art. 6.1), and attorney's fees, arbitration fees, and
audit costs (Pet. ¶ 23; Ex. E, arts. 6.2 and 6.3).
conducted an audit of respondent for the period April 15,
2010 through June 30, 2015 in order to determine whether
respondent had complied with its obligations under the CBAs.
(Pet. ¶ 19.) The auditor determined respondent failed to
remit contributions in the amount of $156, 045.29.
(Id. at ¶ 20.)
to the Collection Policy, petitioners initiated arbitration.
(Id. at ¶ 24.) Petitioners provided Patt
Construction with a Notice of Intent to Arbitrate Delinquency
dated June 23, 2016. (Id.; Ex. F, ECF No. 1-6.) The
arbitrator conducted a hearing and rendered his award in
writing dated August 24, 2016. (Pet. ¶ 25; Ex. G, ECF
No. 1-7.) A copy of the award was delivered to Patt
Construction. (Pet. ¶ 25.)
arbitrator concluded that Patt Construction was in violation
of the terms of the CBAs and ordered respondent to pay the
Funds, pursuant to the CBAs, $247, 226.82, representing $156,
045.29 in deficiencies; $52, 541.12 in interest; $986.35 in
additional interest from past delinquencies; $31, 209.06 in
liquidated damages; $4, 795.00 in audit costs; $900.00 in
attorney's fees; and $750.00 for the arbitrator's
fee. (Pet. ¶ 26; Ex. G.) Respondent has failed to abide
by the award. (Pet. ¶ 27.)
March 20, 2017, petitioners filed their petition in this
Court, seeking confirmation of the arbitrator's award, as
well as costs and attorney's fees incurred in the instant
action. (Pet., ECF No. 1.) The petitioners served respondent
on March 23, 2017. (ECF No. 8.) To date, respondent has not
filed a response or appeared in this action.
Confirmation of Arbitration Award
Standard of Review
motion to confirm an arbitral award should be “treated
as akin to a motion for summary judgment.” D.H.
Blair & Co. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95, 109 (2d Cir.
2006). The standard of review at the summary judgment stage
is well-settled. A court may grant a motion for summary
judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a)
only if “the movant shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a);
Gonzalez v. City of Schenectady, 728 F.3d 149, 154
(2d Cir. 2013). The moving party bears the burden of showing
that he is entitled to summary judgment. See Huminski v.
Corsones, 396 F.3d 53, 69 (2d Cir. 2005).
asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must
support the assertion by: (A) citing to particular parts of
materials in the record, including depositions, documents,
electronically stored information, affidavits or
declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes
of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or
other materials; or (B) showing that the materials cited do
not establish the ...