District Council No. 9 International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, A.F.L.-C.I.O. v. Handyman Specialists, Inc.

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION re: 16 MOTION for Summary Judgment, filed by District Council No. 9 International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, A.F.L.-C.I.O. After reviewing the petition and the supporting materials, the Court finds th at there is no genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment as to all portions of the Award, as the Arbitrators decision provides more than a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached. Id. at *3 (internal quotation marks om itted). Nor is there any justification under Section 10(a) of the Federal Arbitration Act for vacating the Award. Accordingly, the Court grants the Unions unopposed petition to confirm the entire Award.The Union is directed to submit a proposed Judgment consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order to the Orders and Judgments Clerk of this Court by October 23, 2017.The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 16. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 10/16/2017) (ras)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
DISTRICT COUNCIL NO. 9 INTERNATIONAL
:
UNION OF PAINTERS AND ALLIED TRADES
:
A.F.L.-C.I.O.,
:
:
Petitioner,
:
:
-v:
:
:
HANDYMAN SPECIALISTS, INC.,
:
:
Respondent.
:
:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

10/17/2017

17-CV-6199 (JMF)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge:
On August 16, 2017, Petitioner District Council No. 9 International Union of Painters and
Allied Trades A.F.L.-C.I.O. (the “Union”) filed a Petition to Confirm Arbitration. (Docket No.
1). On August 17, 2017, the Court set a briefing schedule for the Union’s submission of any
additional materials in support of the Petition, Respondent Handyman Specialist, Inc.’s
(“Handyman”) opposition, and the Union’s reply. (Docket No. 9). The Union served Handyman
with the Petition, supporting materials, and the briefing schedule. (Docket Nos. 12, 21-22).
Pursuant to the briefing schedule, Handyman’s opposition was due no later than September 14,
2017. (Docket No. 9). To date, Handyman has neither responded to the petition nor otherwise
sought relief from the Award.
The Court must treat the Petition, even though unopposed, “as akin to a motion for
summary judgment based on the movant’s submissions.” Trustees for Mason Tenders Dist.
Council Welfare Fund, Pension Fund, Annuity Fund & Training Program Fund v. Capstone
Const. Corp., 11-CV-1715 (JMF), 2013 WL 1703578, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 19, 2013)

(discussing in depth the legal standards for resolving unopposed petitions to confirm arbitration
awards). After reviewing the petition and the supporting materials, the Court finds that there is
no genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment as to all portions of the Award,
as the Arbitrator’s decision provides more than “a barely colorable justification for the outcome
reached.” Id. at *3 (internal quotation marks omitted). Nor is there any justification under
Section 10(a) of the Federal Arbitration Act for vacating the Award. Accordingly, the Court
grants the Union’s unopposed petition to confirm the entire Award.
The Union is directed to submit a proposed Judgment consistent with this Memorandum
Opinion and Order to the Orders and Judgments Clerk of this Court by October 23, 2017.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 16.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 16, 2017
New York, New York

2