Teamsters Local 177 v. United Parcel Service, 966 F.3d 245

Local 177 and UPS were bound by a collective-bargaining Agreement (Aug 1, 2013–July 31, 2018) with Article 46, §2–3 limiting where drivers may be assigned (the “sister building” rule).
The Union filed grievances (2014, 2015); an arbitrator sustained them and ordered UPS to cease assigning drivers outside designated areas (the Award). UPS accepted the Award and did not seek vacatur.
After the Award, Local 177 alleges repeated violations by UPS; management acknowledged some violations and corrected them; the Union obtained a monetary settlement for some violations.
The Union moved to confirm the Award under FAA §9 to convert it into a court judgment and preserve enforcement rights; UPS opposed and moved to dismiss, arguing lack of Article III case-or-controversy because no ongoing dispute.
The district court followed First Circuit precedent (Derwin), dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; the Third Circuit reversed, holding §9 confirmation is a summary proceeding that courts may grant even absent a new dispute and remanded with instruction to confirm unless statutory grounds to refuse apply.
The opinion limits its holding to awards granting equitable relief and does not decide whether a money- damages award—fully satisfied—gives standing to seek confirmation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Local 177)	Defendant's Argument (UPS)	Held
Whether Article III standing exists to seek confirmation under FAA §9 absent a new dispute	Confirmation is necessary to convert the arbitration award into a judgment; the Union retains a live stake because §9 relief is the final remedy	No live case or controversy exists because UPS agreed to abide by the Award and remedied violations, so there is no imminent injury	Court held standing exists: confirmation is the final FAA step and a live controversy remains until court judgment is entered
Whether §9 confirmation is a summary proceeding requiring less than full litigation	§9 provides for an "application"/motion and statutory mandatory confirmation; confirmation is a summary proceeding to make the award a court judgment	(Implicit) Confirmation should not proceed absent a concrete enforcement dispute	Court held confirmation is a summary proceeding (like consent decrees) that converts an award into a judgment without relitigating merits
Whether Derwin (First Circuit) requiring an active dispute controls	The Union argues FAA's mandatory language and policy favor permitting confirmation without a new dispute	UPS relies on Derwin to argue courts should decline confirmation without active violation	Court declined to follow Derwin, criticizing its reliance on state limitations and concluding Derwin is unpersuasive here

Florasynth, Inc. v. Pickholz, 750 F.2d 171 (2d Cir. 1984) (confirmation is a summary proceeding that makes an arbitration award a court judgment)
Zeiler v. Deitsch, 500 F.3d 157 (2d Cir. 2007) (district courts may confirm awards absent a new dispute; confirmation is limited review)
Ottley v. Schwartzberg, 819 F.2d 373 (2d Cir. 1987) (confirmation proceedings are straightforward and limited to statutory bases for refusal)
Derwin v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 719 F.2d 484 (1st Cir. 1983) (refused confirmation absent an active controversy)
Hall Street Associates, LLC v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (2008) (§9’s "must grant" language is mandatory)
Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (1983) (FAA creates federal substantive law governing arbitration enforcement)
EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. 279 (2002) (arbitration agreements are on the same footing as other contracts)
New Hampshire Fire Ins. Co. v. Scanlon, 362 U.S. 404 (1960) (statutes may authorize summary proceedings)