Trustees for The Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund, Pension Fund, Annuity Fund, and Training Program Fund v. Nacirema Environmental Services, Corp.
1:13-cv-03574
S.D.N.Y.Mar 9, 2015Background
- Petitioners: Trustees for the Mason Tenders District Council Funds and Robert Bonanza sued to confirm a 2012 arbitration award against Nacirema Environmental Services Co., Inc. under the Federal Arbitration Act.
- Dispute arose from a 2002–2005 Collective Bargaining Agreement (and renewals) requiring employer contributions to benefit funds; petitioners alleged unpaid contributions from June 29, 2009 through December 26, 2010.
- Petitioners served a Notice of Intention to Arbitrate and a Notice of Hearing; Nacirema failed to appear at the April 30, 2012 arbitration hearing, which proceeded as a default hearing.
- The arbitrator found Nacirema breached the CBA and issued an Award ordering payment of $190,646.71 to petitioners.
- Petitioners filed a complaint (treated as a petition) to confirm the arbitration award on May 28, 2013; Nacirema was served but did not respond to the complaint or to petitioners’ summary judgment motion.
- The court reviewed petitioners’ uncontested Local Rule 56.1 Statement, the CBA, and supporting documents, found no manifest disregard of law, and granted confirmation of the arbitration award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the arbitration award should be confirmed under the FAA | Award is final; corroborated by CBA and records; no material factual disputes | Nacirema did not respond or contest the award | Confirmed: judgment entered for petitioners; award converted to court judgment |
| Whether the court may confirm despite defendant's default and no response to summary judgment | Default does not bar confirmation if movant shows no genuine issue of material fact | Nacirema offered no opposition or evidence to create a triable issue | Confirmed: court evaluated submissions and found petitioners met burden; no material issue remained |
| Whether arbitrator acted with manifest disregard of law | Award rests on straightforward, supported findings; no legal misapplication alleged | Nacirema raised no claim of manifest disregard | Court found no manifest disregard and declined to vacate or modify the award |
Key Cases Cited
- D.H. Blair & Co., Inc. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2006) (standard for confirming arbitration awards; deference to arbitrator)
- Barbier v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 948 F.2d 117 (2d Cir. 1991) (arbitrator’s reasoning need not be detailed; award confirmed if justification can be inferred)
- Landy Michaels Realty Corp. v. Local 32B-32J, Serv. Emps. Int’l Union, 954 F.2d 794 (2d Cir. 1992) (only a "barely colorable justification" required to uphold an award)
- Wilko v. Swan, 346 U.S. 427 (U.S. 1953) (framework on vacatur and judicial review of arbitration awards)
- Vermont Teddy Bear Co., Inc. v. 1-800 Beargram Co., 375 F.3d 241 (2d Cir. 2004) (summary judgment standards and requirement to evaluate moving party’s submissions before granting relief)