The New York City District Council of Carpenters v. JFD Sales Consulting Services Corporation
Filing
18
OPINION AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner's motion for confirmation and enforcement of the Award is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Petitioner and against JFD in the amount of $63,383.8 0, which consists of the arbitration award of $61,760.80 plus $1,623.00 in attorneys' fees and costs. Post-judgment interest will accrue at the statutory rate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 10/19/2017) (kgo)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------X
:
THE NEW YORK CITY DISTRICT COUNCIL :
OF CARPENTERS,
:
:
Petitioner, :
:
v.
:
:
JFD SALES CONSULTING SERVICES CORP., :
:
Respondent. :
-------------------------------------------------------------X
10/19/2017
17 Civ. 3733 (LGS)
OPINION AND ORDER
LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge:
Petitioner The New York City District Council of Carpenters (the “Union”) petitions to
confirm and enforce an October 21, 2016, Arbitration Award (the “Award”) rendered in its
favor, and seeks attorneys’ fees, costs and prejudgment interest. Respondent JFD Sales
Consulting Services Corporation (“JFD”) does not oppose the Petition. For the following
reasons, the Petition is granted.
I.
BACKGROUND
The following facts are taken from the Award, evidence submitted to the arbitrator and
evidence in support of the Petition.
Pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement (the “CBA”) and a project labor
agreement, JFD agreed to make contributions to specified benefit funds on behalf of all
employees covered by the agreements. JFD also agreed to comply with the hiring requirements
under the CBA, which provides that half of the employees must be selected by the Union and the
other half, JFD could select. In the event JFD is delinquent in its contribution or fails to comply
with the CBA’s hiring practices, the CBA requires all unresolved disputes to be brought to
arbitration. The CBA also provides that the costs of arbitration will be borne equally by the
Union and JFD, and that upon the confirmation of the arbitrator’s award, the prevailing party
will be entitled to receive all court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.
JFD failed to make the required contributions to the employee benefit funds and failed to
comply with the CBA hiring requirements. On August 3, 2016, the Union notified JFD of its
intent to pursue arbitration based on these delinquencies under the CBA and the project labor
agreement. On October 18, 2016, the arbitration hearing was held. No representative of JFD
appeared or otherwise contacted the arbitrator. Because JFD had notice of the hearing, the
arbitrator conducted the arbitration as a default hearing. On October 21, 2016, the arbitrator
issued the Award in favor of the Union of $60,760.80 and $1,000, representing half the
arbitrator’s fee.
On May 18, 2017, Petitioner commenced this action to confirm and enforce the Award
pursuant to Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C. §185,
and to obtain attorneys’ fees and costs. On that same day, an electronic summons was issued to
JFD. JFD did not respond to the Petition.
II.
DISCUSSION
A. Confirmation of the Award
Confirmation of an arbitration award is “a summary proceeding that merely makes what
is already a final arbitration award a judgment of the court, and the court must grant the award
unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected.” D.H. Blair & Co. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d
95, 110 (2d Cir. 2006) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); accord ISC Holding AG
v. Nobel Biocare Fin. AG, 688 F.3d 98, 114 (2d Cir. 2012). “[G]enerally a district court should
2
treat an unanswered . . . petition to confirm . . . as an unopposed motion for summary judgment.”
D.H. Blair & Co., 462 F.3d at 110.
Though a summary judgment standard is applied to confirmation proceedings, a “federal
court’s review of labor arbitration awards is narrowly circumscribed and highly deferential—
indeed, among the most deferential in the law.” Nat’l Football League Mgmt. Council v. Nat’l
Football League Players Ass’n, 820 F.3d 527, 532 (2d. Cir. 2016). The Award should be
confirmed “if a ground for the arbitrator’s decision can be inferred from the facts of the case.”
D.H. Blair, 462 F.3d at 110 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). A “barely
colorable” justification for the arbitrator’s decision is sufficient to meet this standard. Id.
No material issues of genuine fact exist in this case. The petition is uncontested and the
exhibits upon which the arbitrator relied credibly demonstrate that JFD failed to remit benefit
contributions and that JFD failed to comply with the hiring practice required by the CBA.
Disputes arising under the CBA are required to be arbitrated. Consequently, Petitioner is entitled
to confirmation of the Award. See e.g., Nat’l Football League, 820 F.3d at 537; see also Mason
Tenders Dis. Council Welfare Fund v. DCM Grp., No. 13 Civ. 1925, 2017 WL 384690, at *4
(S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2017) (confirming arbitration award brought under LMRA § 301 where
respondent did not oppose petition and record supported arbitrator’s findings).
B. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
Petitioner requests attorneys’ fees of $1,148 and costs of $475. That request is granted
for two independent reasons. First, although LMRA § 301 does not provide for attorneys’ fees in
actions to confirm and enforce an arbitration award, a contractual provision for the payment of
such fees provides a basis to award them. Trs. of Empire State Carpenters Annuity v. Bayview
Custom Constr. Corp., No. 15 Civ. 6574, 2016 WL 6892147, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2016);
3
N.Y.C. Dist. Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Dafna Const. Co., 438 F. Supp. 2d 238, 242
(S.D.N.Y. 2006). Second, “[a]s applied to suits for the confirmation and enforcement of
arbitration awards, . . . when a challenger refuses to abide by an arbitrator’s decision without
justification, the attorneys’ fees and costs may properly be awarded” pursuant to the Court’s
equitable powers.” See Int’l Chem. Workers Union (AFL-CIO), Local No. 227 v. BASF
Wyandotte Corp., 774 F.2d at 47 (quotation marks omitted); accord N.Y.C. Dist. Council of
Carpenters v. New England Constr. Co., No. 16 Civ. 6608, 2017 WL 1967743, at *4 (S.D.N.Y.
May 11, 2017).
Here, the CBA provides, “Upon the confirmation of the arbitrator’s award, the prevailing
party shall, or on any appeal therefore, be entitled to receive all court costs in each proceeding as
well as reasonable counsel fees.” The CBA also provides that “[t]he costs of the arbitration,
including the arbitrator’s fee shall be borne equally by the Employer and the Union.” JFD
agreed to the CBA, failed to participate in the arbitration after receiving notice, failed to satisfy
the Award and failed to oppose the instant Petition. In so doing, JFD has failed to justify its
refusal to abide by the arbitrator’s decision. Petitioner is therefore entitled to reasonable
attorneys’ fees and costs. See, e.g., Trs. Of the N. Y. C. Dist. Council of Carpenters Pension
Fund v. Coastal Envtl. Grp., Inc., No. 16 Civ. 6004, 2016 WL 7335672, at *3–4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec.
16, 2016) (awarding fees and costs where employer agreed to arbitration, but failed to appear at
the hearing, satisfy the award or oppose a petition to confirm the award).
“[T]he lodestar–the product of a reasonable hourly rate and the reasonable number of
hours required by the case–creates a ‘presumptively reasonable fee.’” Millea v. Metro-N. R. Co.,
658 F.3d 154, 166 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Assoc.
v. Cty. of Albany, 522 F.3d 182, 183 (2d Cir. 2008)). In support of its request for attorneys’ fees,
4
Petitioner submitted contemporaneous timesheets and background information about the attorney
who worked on the case. Petitioner’s counsel worked 10.8 hours on the petition, at a rate of
$250.00 per hour for an “Of Counsel” attorney and $90.00 per hour for a legal assistant.
Petitioner also paid $400.00 for filing fees and $75.00 for service fees. On review of the
contemporaneous time records and background information, the amounts requested are
reasonable. See, e.g., Coastal Envtl. Grp., 2016 WL 7335672, at *3–4; Trs. of the N. Y. C. Dist.
Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Harbor Island Contracting, Inc., No. 14 Civ. 9507, 2015
WL 5146093, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2015). Petitioner’s request for fees and costs is granted.
C. Post-Judgment Interest
Petitioner’s request for post-judgment interest is granted. Post-judgment interest is
“allowed on any money judgment in a civil case recovered in a district court.” 28 U.S.C. §
1961(a)(2012).
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s motion for confirmation and enforcement of the
Award is GRANTED.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Petitioner and against JFD in
the amount of $63,383.80, which consists of the arbitration award of $61,760.80 plus $1,623.00
in attorneys’ fees and costs. Post-judgment interest will accrue at the statutory rate pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1961.
Dated: October 19, 2017
New York, New York
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?