Jack Rubenstein CT, LLC v. Naturalena Brands, Inc.

Filing 13

ORDER granting 8 Motion to Confirm Arbitration. For the foregoing reasons, the petition to confirm the Award is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment against Naturalena in the amount of $3,675,278.50, plus post-Award interest at a rate of $688.32 per day accruing from August 1, 2024, through the date of judgment, and post-judgment interest at the statutory rate. The Clerk of Court is further directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 8 and close the case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Analisa Torres on 11/26/2024) (vfr) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.

DISCUSSION
I.

Legal Standard

Arbitration awards are not self-enforcing; rather, they must “be given force and effect by
being converted to judicial orders.” D.H. Blair & Co. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95, 104 (2d Cir.
2006). The FAA provides that any party to an arbitration proceeding can apply for a judicial
decree confirming the award, and a court must grant the award unless the award “was procured
by corruption, fraud, or undue means,” there existed “evident partiality or corruption in the
arbitrator[],” the arbitrator exhibited “misconduct” that “prejudiced” a party, the arbitrator
“exceeded [his] powers,” or the arbitrator made “an evident material miscalculation of figures or
an evident material mistake in the description of any person, thing, or property referred to in the
award.” 9 U.S.C. §§ 9–11.
“It is well established that courts must grant an [arbitrator’s] decision great deference.”
Duferco Int’l Steel Trading v. T. Klaveness Shipping A/S, 333 F.3d 383, 388 (2d Cir. 2003). An
action to confirm an arbitration award is, therefore, generally “a summary proceeding that
merely makes what is already a final arbitration award a judgment of the court.” D.H. Blair, 462
F.3d at 110 (citation omitted). “[T]he showing required to avoid confirmation is very high.” Id.
Indeed, “[t]he arbitrator’s rationale for an award need not be explained, and the award should be
confirmed if a ground for the arbitrator’s decision can be inferred from the facts of the case.
Only a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached by the arbitrator[] is necessary to
confirm the award.” Id. (citations omitted).
“[A] district court should treat an unanswered . . . petition to [confirm an arbitration
award] as an unopposed motion for summary judgment.” Id. Summary judgment is appropriate
when the record shows that there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 322–23 (1986). A court must consider all the evidence in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party, Overton v. N.Y. State Div. of Mil. & Naval Affs., 373 F.3d 83, 89 (2d Cir.
2004), and must “resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of
the party against whom summary judgment is sought,” Sec. Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Old Dominion
Freight Line, Inc., 391 F.3d 77, 83 (2d Cir. 2004). Although Naturalena has not appeared in this
action, the Court must still “examin[e] the moving party’s submission to determine if it has met
its burden of demonstrating that no material issue of fact remains for trial.” D.H. Blair & Co.,
462 F.3d at 110 (citation omitted).
II.

Analysis

JRC argues that it is entitled to confirmation of the Award and post-judgment interest.
ECF No. 10 at 3. The Court agrees.
A. Confirmation of the Award
JRC is entitled to confirmation of the Award because it has carried its burden to
demonstrate that there is no genuine dispute of material fact regarding the validity of the
2

arbitration. The arbitrator provides far more than the “barely colorable justification for the
outcome reached,” D.H. Blair, 462 F.3d at 110, and none of the justifications for vacating or
modifying an award under 9 U.S.C. § 10 or § 11 apply. It is also clear that the parties’
agreement authorized them to arbitrate disputes arising out of their business relationship. Award
¶ 15; ECF No. 9-5 at 2; see also ECF No. 903. Accordingly, the Court confirms the Award,
which is equal to $3,675,278.50 in compensatory damages, legal fees and costs, and pre-Award
interest, plus post-Award interest of $688.32 for each day between August 1, 2024, and the date
judgment is entered, inclusive. See Award ¶ 208.
B. Post-Judgment Interest
“The award of post-judgment interest is mandatory on awards in civil cases as of the date
judgment is entered.” Trs. of the Loc. 7 Tile Indus. Welfare Fund v. Richard’s Improvement
Bldg. Inc., No. 15 Civ. 3898, 2016 WL 6110455, at *11 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2016) (quoting Lewis
v. Whelan, 99 F.3d 542, 545 (2d Cir. 1996)). Because the Court’s confirmation of the Award is a
money judgment in a civil case, JRC is entitled to post-judgment interest at the statutory rate.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1961.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the petition to confirm the Award is GRANTED. The Clerk of
Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment against Naturalena in the amount of
$3,675,278.50, plus post-Award interest at a rate of $688.32 per day accruing from August 1,
2024, through the date of judgment, and post-judgment interest at the statutory rate. The Clerk
of Court is further directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 8 and close the case.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 26, 2024
New York, New York

3