Eventemps Corporation v. The Four Percent Group, LLC, No. 1:2018cv06887 - Document 8 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Accordingly, the Court grants Petitioner's unopposed petition to confirm the entire Award. Petitioner is directed to file their Proposed Judgment electronically, using the ECF Filing Event "Proposed Judgment," by no later than September 5, 2018. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 8/29/2018) (ne)

Download PDF
Eventemps Corporation v. The Four Percent Group, LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : EVENTEMPS CORPORATION, : : Petitioner, : : -v: : : THE FOUR PERCENT GROUP, LLC, : : Respondent. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X Doc. 8 08/29/2018 18-CV-6887 (JMF) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: On July 31, 2018, Petitioner filed a Petition to Confirm Arbitration. (Docket No. 2). On August 1, 2018, the Court set a briefing schedule for Petitioner’s submission of any additional materials in support of the Petition, Respondent’s opposition, and Petitioner’s reply. (Docket No. 4). Petitioner served Respondent with the Petition, supporting materials, and the briefing schedule. (Docket Nos. 6 & 7). Pursuant to the briefing schedule, Respondent’s opposition was due no later than August 24, 2018. (Docket No. 4). To date, Respondent 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.” Trs. for Mason Tenders Dist. Council Welfare Fund, Pension Fund, Annuity Fund & Training Program Fund v. Capstone Constr. 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 Dockets.Justia.com 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. The Court grants Petitioner’s request for pre-judgment interest at a rate of nine percent. See Herrenknecht Corp. v. Best Rd. Boring, No. 06-CV-5106 (JFK), 2007 WL 1149122, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 16, 2007) (“The common practice among courts within the Second Circuit is to grant interest at a rate of nine percent, the rate of pre-judgment interest under New York State law.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Waterside Ocean Navigant Co. v. Int’l Navigation Ltd., 737 F.2d 150, 154 (2d Cir. 1984) (adopting a “presumption in favor of pre-judgment interest”). By contrast, the Court denies Petitioner’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs for this proceeding, as it provides no documentation of such fees and costs. Accordingly, the Court grants Petitioner’s unopposed petition to confirm the entire Award. Petitioner is directed to file their Proposed Judgment electronically, using the ECF Filing Event “Proposed Judgment,” by no later than September 5, 2018. SO ORDERED. Dated: August 29, 2018 New York, New York __________________________________ JESSE M. FURMAN United States District Judge 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.