|
A federal court in New York cited Second Circuit precedent in ruling that uncontested confirmation proceedings should be treated as an unopposed motion for summary judgment rather than a motion for default judgment. Accordingly, the Court examined the party's submissions in deciding whether to confirm the award.
In Herrenknecht Corp. v. Best Road Boring, 2007 WL 1149122 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 16, 2007), Herrenknecht leased equipment to Best Road. When Best Road stopped making payments, Herrenknecht recovered the equipment and filed an arbitration claim for breach of the lease. Best Road failed to appear at arbitration, and an award was issued in Herrenknecht's favor. Herrenknecht moved to confirm the award and for default judgment.
The Court ruled that the motion should be treated as an unopposed motion for summary judgment rather than a default judgment. As support for this ruling, the Court cited D.H. Blair & Co. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95, 107 (2d Cir. 2006), which found that default judgment proceedings "do[] not operate well in the context of a motion to confirm or vacate an arbitration award." Usually, a motion to confirm an arbitration award is accompanied by a record (e.g., the arbitration award), as in this case.
In treating the proceedings as an unopposed motion for summary judgment, the Court examined Herrenknecht's submissions to determine if the award should be confirmed. The Court found no improprieties and no reason not to confirm the award. Accordingly, the Court confirmed the award.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|