UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK TRUSTEES OF THE NEW YORK CITY DISTRICT COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS PENSION FUND, WELFARE FUND, ANNUITY FUND, AND APPRENTICESHIP, JOURNEYMAN RETRAINING, EDUCATIONAL AND INDUSTRY FUND, TRUSTEES OF THE NEW YORK CITY CARPENTERS RELIEF AND CHARITY FUND, THE CARPENTER CONTRACTOR OPINION & ORDER ALLIANCE OF METROPOLITAN NEW YORK, and NEW YORK CITY DISTRICT 22-cv-04078 (ER) COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS, Petitioners, – against – PROVIDENCE CONSTRUCTION CORP., Respondent. RAMOS, D.J.: Petitioners filed this action under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (LMRA) to confirm an arbitration award against Providence Construction Corp. �e petition is GRANTED. I. BACKGROUND �e facts below are taken from the petition to confirm arbitration and the attached documents. Doc. 1. A. �e Parties Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Annuity Fund, and Apprenticeship, Journeyman Retraining, Educational and Industry Fund are employer and employee trustees of multiemployer labor- management trust funds organized and operated in accordance with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Id. ¶ 4. Trustees of the New York City Carpenters Relief and Charity Fund are trustees of a charitable organization established under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Id. ¶ 5. Carpenter Contractor Alliance of Metropolitan New York is a New York not-for-profit corporation. Id. ¶ 6. �e Court follows the petition in referring to these three petitioners collectively as “the Funds.” See id. at 1. �e fourth petitioner, New York City District Council of Carpenters (the Union), is a labor organization and is the certified bargaining representative for certain employees of Providence. Id. ¶ 7. Providence is a New York corporation. Id. ¶ 8. Petitioners assert that Providence was an employer within the meaning of section 3(5) of ERISA and was an employer in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of section 501 of the LMRA. Id. B. �e Collective Bargaining Agreement At all relevant times, Providence was a member of the General Contractors Association of New York (the Association). Id. ¶ 9. As a member of the Association, Providence consented to be bound by the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the Association and the Union. Id. ¶ 10. �e CBA requires Providence to make contributions to the Funds for each hour worked by its employees within the trade and geographic jurisdiction covered by the CBA. Id. ¶ 12; see Doc. 1-2 at 35–36. �e CBA also binds employers to certain policies adopted by the Funds, including the Funds’ Revised Statement of Policy for Collection of Employer Contributions (the Collection Policy). Doc. 1 ¶¶ 13–14; see Doc. 1-2 at 35–36; Doc. 1-8. Under the CBA and the Collection Policy, Providence must furnish its books and payroll records when requested by the Funds to conduct an audit to ensure compliance with required benefit fund contributions. Doc. 1 ¶ 15; see Doc. 1-2 at 40; Doc. 1-8 at 4–7. �e CBA includes an arbitration provision that states: “Should any dispute or disagreement arise between the parties hereto, or between the Union and/or the Union Benefit Funds and any Employer-member signatory hereto, concerning any claim arising from payments to the Fund of principal and/or interest which is allegedly due, either party may seek arbitration of the dispute . . . .” Doc. 1-2 at 43. “�e arbitrator shall have full and complete authority to decide any and all issues raised by the submission and to award appropriate damages.” Id. If arbitration proceedings are initiated under the CBA “to collect delinquent contributions to a Benefit Fund or Funds,” the arbitrator “shall be empowered to award such interest, liquidated damages, and/or costs as may be applicable under the Agreement and Declaration of Trust establishing such Fund(s).” Id. at 40. In addition to the unpaid contributions, the CBA and the Collection Policy allow the Funds to collect: (1) interest on the unpaid contributions at the prime rate of Citibank plus 2%; (2) liquidated damages in the amount of 20% of the unpaid contributions; and (3) reasonable costs and attorney fees incurred by the Funds in collecting the unpaid contributions. Doc. 1 ¶ 18; see Doc. 1-2 at 39–40; Doc. 1-8 at 8–9. C. �e Arbitration Award Petitioners conducted an audit of Providence covering the period October 1, 2018, through March 21, 2021. Doc. 1 ¶ 20. �e audit revealed a principal deficiency of $422.16. Id. ¶ 21. Petitioners also discovered that Providence had failed to remit additional contributions in the amount of $11,197.10. Id. ¶ 22. Providence failed to pay those amounts. Id. ¶ 23. Petitioners initiated arbitration pursuant to the CBA. Id. ¶ 24. �e hearing was held on January 19, 2022. Id. ¶ 26; see Doc. 1-11 at 2. Providence did not appear. Doc. 1-11 at 2. �e arbitrator issued an award on March 2, 2022. Doc. 1 ¶ 27; see Doc. 1-11. �e arbitrator concluded that Providence was “deficient and delinquent in remitting fringe benefit contribution[s] to the Funds.” Doc. 1-11 at 3. �e arbitrator ordered Providence to pay the Funds a total of $27,467.97, consisting of: (1) the principal deficiency of $422.16; (2) interest thereon of $32.17; (3) liquidated damages of $84.43; (4) audit costs of $4,180; (5) late payment interest of $8,649.71; (6) promotional fund costs of $2.40; (7) additional shortages of $11,197.10; (8) court costs of $400; (9) attorney fees of $1,500; and (10) arbitrator fees of $1,000. Doc. 1 ¶ 28; see Doc. 1-11 at 3. D. �is Action As of May 18, 2022, Providence had not paid any part of the arbitration award. Doc. 1 ¶ 29. On that date, Petitioners commenced this action to confirm the award. Doc. 1. Providence was served on May 20 but did not appear. Doc. 7. On June 24, the Court ordered Providence to show cause why the petition should not be considered unopposed. Doc. 9. Providence failed to respond to that order. Accordingly, the Court will treat the petition as unopposed. II. LEGAL STANDARD “Normally, 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,

(2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). �e Second Circuit has recognized that “an extremely deferential standard of review for arbitral awards” is appropriate “[t]o encourage and support the use of arbitration by consenting parties.” Porzig v. Dresdner, Kleinwort, Benson, N. Am. LLC,

(2d Cir. 2007). “�e 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.” D.H. Blair,

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “Only a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached by the arbitrators is necessary to confirm the award.”

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). An unanswered petition to confirm an arbitration award is generally treated as “an unopposed motion for summary judgment.”

Summary judgment is appropriate where “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). �ere is no genuine dispute of material fact where “the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party.” McKinney v. City of Middletown,

(2d Cir. 2022) (citation omitted). �e court must “construe the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and must resolve all ambiguities and draw all reasonable inferences against the movant.” Brod v. Omya, Inc.,

(2d Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). Even if a motion for summary judgment is unopposed, the court is required to “review the motion . . . and determine from what it has before it whether the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.” Vt. Teddy Bear Co. v. 1-800 Beargram Co.,

, 246 (2d Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). In other words, the court may not grant an unopposed summary judgment motion “without first examining the moving party’s submission to determine if it has met its burden of demonstrating that no material issue of fact remains for trial.” Amaker v. Foley,

(2d Cir. 2001). III. DISCUSSION �e Court finds that there is sufficient justification for this award. �e CBA provides for arbitration as an available remedy “to collect delinquent contributions to a Benefit Fund or Funds.” Doc. 1-2 at 40. It also states that the arbitrator “shall be empowered to award such interest, liquidated damages, and/or costs as may be applicable under the Agreement and Declaration of Trust establishing such Fund(s).”

In this case, the arbitrator concluded that there was “substantial and credible evidence” that Providence was “deficient and delinquent in remitting fringe benefit contribution[s] to the Funds.” Doc. 1-11 at 3. Consistent with the CBA and the Collection Policy, the arbitrator ordered Providence to pay the Funds a total of $27,467.97.

“Where, as here, there is no indication that the arbitration decision was made arbitrarily, exceeded the arbitrator’s jurisdiction, or otherwise was contrary to law, a court must confirm the award upon the timely application of any party.” Trustees of N.Y.C. Dist. Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Dejil Sys., Inc., No. 12 Civ. 005 (JMF),

, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2012). �e Court also finds that an award of attorney fees and costs is appropriate. Providence has not appeared in this case and has not attempted to modify or vacate the award. Courts “have routinely awarded attorneys fees in cases where a party merely refuses to abide by an arbitrator’s award without challenging or seeking to vacate it through a motion to the court.” Trustees of N.Y.C. Dist. Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Alliance Workroom Corp., No. 13 Civ. 5096 (KPF),

, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2013) (quoting Abondolo v. H. & M.S. Meat Corp., No. 07 Civ. 3870 (RJS),

, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. May 12, 2008)). Counsel for Petitioners—Virginia & Ambinder, LLP—billed at a rate of $275 per hour for associate Maura Moosnick and $120 per hour for two legal assistants. Doc. 1 ¶¶ 36–37; see Doc. 1-12. �e Court finds these rates reasonable. See, e.g., Trustees of N.Y.C. Dist. Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Franco’s Blinds & Shades Inc., No. 23 Civ. 5884 (JGLC),

, at *4–5 (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2024) (awarding $275 hourly rate for Moosnick and $155 hourly rate for legal assistants). �e Court concludes that the time billed on this action—twelve hours—was reasonable as well. Doc. 1 ¶ 39; see, e.g., Trustees of N. Atl. States Carpenters Health, Pension, Annuity, Apprenticeship, & Lab. Mgmt. Cooperation Funds v. Dame Contracting, Inc., No. 23 Civ. 05254 (NJC) (JMW),

, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. May 21, 2024) (finding that 12.7 hours was reasonable in similar case). And the Court will grant the $77 in service fees and legal costs requested by Petitioners. Doc. 1 ¶ 40; see, e.g., Trustees of N.Y.C. Dist. Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Blue Moon Health Mgmt. LLC, No. 22 Civ. 1807 (KPF),

, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2022) (finding request for $77 in costs to be reasonable). Finally, the Court grants postjudgment interest on the award pursuant to

. Lewis v. Whelan,

(2d Cir. 1996) (“The award of post-judgment interest is mandatory on awards in civil cases as of the date judgment is entered.”). IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the petition to confirm the award is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment in favor of Petitioners in the amount of $29,635.97, consisting of: (i) the arbitration award of $27,467.97; (ii) $2,091 in attorney fees; and (111) $77 in costs. Postjudgment interest will accrue at the statutory rate pursuant to

. The Clerk of Court is also respectfully directed to close the case.

It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: New vork New York □ bt \ J. ~ EDGARDO RAMOS, U.S.DJ.