# Restrepo v. Mechanical Electrical Corp.

> District Court, E.D. New York · October 10, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11167283

## Case

- **Full name:** Humberto Restrepo, as Chairman of the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry v. Mechanical Electrical Corp.
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. New York
- **Decided:** October 10, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11167283

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that a reviewing court should only overturn an arbitration award if the arbitrator acted in manifest disregard of the law

## Opinion text

United States District Court
Eastern District of New York

-----------------------------------X

HUMBERTO RESTREPO, as Chairman of
the Joint Industry Board of the
Electrical Industry Memorandum and Order

Petitioner, No. 24-cv-8140 (KAM)(TAM)

- against -

MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL CORP.

Respondent.

-----------------------------------X

Kiyo A. Matsumoto, United States District Judge:

On November 22, 2024, Petitioner Humberto Restrepo as
Chairman of the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry
(“Petitioner”) commenced this action to enforce an Arbitration
Award issued in Petitioner’s favor against Respondent Mechanical
Electrical Corporation (“Respondent” or “Mechanical Electrical”)
pursuant to Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act
(“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 185, and Section 502(a)(3) of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C.
§ 1132(a)(3). (ECF No. 1, Petition (“Pet.”) ¶ 1.) Respondent was
served with process on December 6, 2024, but has failed to appear,
answer or otherwise respond to the Petition. (ECF No. 8, Aff. of
Service.) Presently before the Court is Petitioner’s motion to
construe the Petition as an unopposed motion for summary judgment.
(ECF No. 9, Def. Mot.) For the reasons set forth below, the motion
to treat the Petition as an unopposed motion for summary judgment
is GRANTED, the Arbitration Award is CONFIRMED, and Judgment is

awarded to Petitioner.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Petitioner is the Chairman of the Joint Industry Board of the
Electrical Industry (“JIB”), which is the administrator of
“various employee benefit multi-employer plans1 [(the “ERISA
Plans”)] established and maintained pursuant to a collective
bargaining agreement [(the “CBA”)] between Local Union No. 3 of
the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, and
certain employer associations and independent or unaffiliated
employers in the electrical and other related industries,”
including Respondent Mechanical Electrical. (ECF No. 1, Pet. ¶ 4.)
Petitioner is an administrator and fiduciary within the meaning of
Sections 3(16)(A)(i) and 3(21)(A) of ERISA. 29 U.S.C.

§§ 1002(16)(A)(i), 1002(21)(A). (ECF No. 1, Pet. ¶ 4.)

1 The ERISA Plans are employee benefit plans within the meaning of § 3(3) of
ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1002(3), and multi-employer plans within the meaning of § 3(37)
of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1002(37). (ECF No. 1, Pet. ¶ 6.) They include, “the
Pension, Hospitalization and Benefit Plan of the Electrical Industry (the
“PHBP”), the Dental Benefit Fund of the Electrical Industry (“DEN”), the
Educational and Cultural Trust Fund of the Electrical Industry (the “E&C”), the
Annuity Plan of the Electrical Industry (“ANN”), and the Health Reimbursement
Account Plan of the Electrical Industry (“HRAP”), the Deferred Salary Plan of
the Electrical Industry (the “DSP”), and the Joint Apprenticeship and Training
Program (the “JATP”), and the National Electrical Benefit Plan
(“NEBF”)(collectively the “ERISA Plans").” (ECF No. 1, Pet. ¶ 4.) Each of
these plans are administrated in accordance with § 302(c)(5) of the LMRA, 29
U.S.C. § 186(c)(5). (ECF No. 1, Pet. ¶ 6.) The DSP is a “tax-qualified profit-
sharing plan with a cash or deferred arrangement within the meaning of § 401(k)
of the Internal Revenue Code.” (ECF No. 1, Pet. ¶ 7.)
Petitioner alleges that Mechanical Electrical is a New York
corporation engaged in the electrical contracting business and an
employer within the meaning of Section 3(5) of ERISA and Section

501 of the LMRA. 29 U.S.C. § 1002(5); 29 U.S.C. § 142; (ECF No.
1, Pet. ¶ 13.)
In April 2019, the Parties entered into a collective
bargaining agreement (the “CBA”) effective beginning April 10,
2019. (ECF No. 1, Pet. ¶ 17; ECF No. 1-1, Pet. Ex. A, LOA.) On
May 12, 2022, the Parties extended the coverage term of the CBA up
to and including April 9, 2025. (ECF No. 1-3, Pet. Ex. C, MOA at
1.) The CBA binds the Parties to the “Policy for the Collection
of Delinquent Contributions” (the “Collection Policy”) and the
“Arbitration Procedures and Rules Governing Employer Delinquency
Disputes and Audits” (the “Arbitration Procedures”) and sets
forth, inter alia, Mechanical Electrical’s obligation to make

required contributions to the ERISA Plans, the policy for
collecting delinquent contributions, and a method for dispute
resolution. (See ECF No. 1, Pet. ¶¶ 21, 23-24; ECF No. 1-4, Pet.
Ex. D, Collection Policy; ECF No. 1-5, Pet. Ex. E, Arbitration
Procedures; ECF No. 1-3, Pet. Ex. 2, CBA.)
Under the terms of the CBA, Mechanical Electrical is required
to provide benefit contributions to the ERISA Plans2 and weekly

2 These contributions include (1) contributions to each of the ERISA Plans,
except the DSP, Union Assessment remittances, and Non-ERISA Plan Contributions
(collectively the “JIB Contributions”); and (2) employee and employer
payroll3 reports to Petitioner. (ECF No. 1, Pet. ¶¶ 5, 8-12,
20-21; ECF No. 1-8, Pet. Ex. H, Arb. Mem. ¶ 6.) The Arbitration
Procedures provide for final and binding arbitration of all

disputes between Petitioner and Mechanical Electrical related to
Mechanical Electrical’s obligation to contribute to the ERISA
Plans, and specifies arbitrators eligible to hear such disputes.
(ECF No. 1-5, Pet. Ex. E, Arbitration Procedures at 2.) The
Arbitration Procedures also state that Mechanical Electrical is
liable for the arbitrator’s fees and Petitioner’s attorney’s fees
and costs should the arbitrator find in whole or in part for
Petitioner. (ECF No. 1-5, Pet. Ex. E, Arbitration Procedures at
8.)
Petitioner alleges that Mechanical Electrical violated the
CBA by failing to submit payroll reports and remit required
contributions to the ERISA Plans for the payroll weeks of (1)

November 10, 2021, through December 29, 2021, and (2) the payroll
weeks of January 5, 2022, through February 2, 2022. (ECF No. 1,
Pet. ¶ 30.) In response to the alleged violation, Petitioner
delivered to Mechanical Electrical, a written demand to arbitrate
the grievance by written submission. (ECF No. 1, Pet. ¶ 31; ECF

contribution to the DSP (collectively the “DSP Contributions”). (ECF No. 1 ¶¶
5, 8-12.)

3 The “weekly payroll reports” were required to “provide the name, gross wages,
and hours worked for each worker employed by the company on whose behalf these
contributions are made.” (ECF No. 1, Pet. ¶ 20.)
No. 1-6, Pet. Ex. F, Not. of Intent to Arbitrate.)
An arbitration hearing by written submission was held on
December 21, 2023 before the designated arbitrator. (ECF No. 1-

7, Pet. Ex. G, Not. of Adj. at 2.) Mechanical Electrical did not
submit a written response to Petitioner’s claims and did not
appear. (ECF No. 1-10, Pet. Ex. J, Award at 4 n.1.) Prior to
the arbitration hearing, however, Mechanical Electrical executed
a Stipulation Admitting Facts in which Mechanical Electrical
agreed, inter alia, that it owed Petitioner contribution
delinquencies, “including the audit delinquencies sought [through
arbitration].” (ECF No. 1-10, Pet. Ex. J, Award at 7 n.4.)
On January 2, 2024, the arbitrator found in Petitioner’s favor
and determined Mechanical Electrical violated the CBA, ERISA, and
the LMRA by “failing to timely remit contributions required by the
CBA for the payroll periods ending November 10, 2021 through

December 6, 2023.” (ECF No. 1-10, Pet. Ex. J, Award at 7.)
Accordingly, the arbitrator awarded Petitioner a total Arbitration
Award of $359,232.77 (the “Arbitration Award”) comprised of the
principal sum of delinquent contributions, interest on the
principal sum, liquidated damages, attorney’s fees and costs, and
the arbitrator’s fee, and ordered Mechanical Electrical to submit
outstanding payroll reports. (ECF No. 1-10, Pet. Ex. J, Award at
8-9.) Under the Arbitration Award, “[i]nterest shall continue to
accrue on the principal amounts owed until paid in full” and
Mechanical Electrical is liable for all costs, “including
reasonable attorney’s fees, incurred by [Petitioner] in enforcing
[the arbitrator’s] Opinion and Award.” (ECF No. 1-10, Pet. Ex. J,

Award at 8-9.)
Under the Arbitration Award, Petitioner could also adjust the
amounts owed by Mechanical Electrical based on the submission of
payroll reports. (ECF No. 10-10, Pet. Ex. J, Award at 9 n.6.)
On or about January 8, 2024, Mechanical Electrical submitted the
“outstanding payroll reports for payroll weeks ending November 10,
2021 through and including December 6, 2023.” (ECF No. 1, Pet. ¶
45.) Based on these payroll reports and pursuant to the Award,
Respondent owes a Revised Arbitration Award amount of $234,981.62
as follows: (1) a principal amount in delinquent JIB contributions
of $131,207.79; (2) a principal amount in delinquent Deferred
Salary Plan of the Electrical Industry ("DSP") contributions of

$7,324.60; (3) DSP interest of $792.98; (4) JIB interest of
$12,573.14; (5) additional JIB interest of $28,276.40;
(6) liquidated damages of $52,556.71; and (7) attorney’s fees,
costs, and arbitrator’s fees of $2,250.00. (ECF No. 1, Pet. ¶ 46;
ECF No. 1-11, Pet. Ex. K, Revised Summary of Award Balance.)
Mechanical Electrical has made payments of $13,366.12 towards
the DSP interest of $792.28 and JIB interest of $12,573.14, but
has failed to otherwise satisfy the Award, leaving an outstanding
balance of $221,615.50. (ECF No. 1, Pet. ¶ 47.) The Award has
not been vacated or modified, and no application for such relief
is pending. (ECF No. 1, Pet. ¶ 49.)
LEGAL STANDARD
“Because arbitration awards are not self-enforcing, they

must be given force and effect by being converted to judicial
orders by courts; these orders can confirm and/or vacate the award,
either in whole or in part.” D.H. Blair & Co., Inc. v. Gottdiener,
462 F.3d 95, 104 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation omitted).
Federal courts have jurisdiction over the enforcement of
arbitration awards under Section 301 of the LMRA, 29 U.S.C. § 185.
Gen. Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers, Loc. Union No. 89 v. Riss &
Co., 372 U.S. 517, 519 (1963); Loc. 802, Assoc. Musicians of
Greater N.Y. v. Parker Meridien Hotel, 145 F.3d 85, 88 (2d Cir.
1998).
Where, as here, a respondent fails to appear, a motion to
confirm an award and the accompanying record should be “treated as

akin to a motion for summary judgment based on the movant's
submissions.” D.H. Blair, 462 F.3d at 109. Because the court
will treat Petitioner's motion as a motion for summary judgment,
it has considered petitioner's pleadings, declarations,
affidavits, and other documentary evidence annexed to the motion.
(See ECF No. 1, Pet. & Exhibits; ECF No. 4, Pet. Mem. in Supp.
(“Pet. Mem.”).)
DISCUSSION
I. Confirmation of the Award
Confirmation of an arbitration award “is a summary proceeding
that merely makes what is already a final arbitration award a
judgment of the court.” D.H. Blair, 462 F.3d at
110 (quoting Florasynth, Inc. v. Pickholz, 750 F.2d 171, 176 (2d

Cir. 1984)). As a result, “arbitration awards are subject to very
limited review in order to avoid undermining the twin goals of
arbitration, namely, settling disputes efficiently and avoiding
long and expensive litigation.” Willemijn Houdstermaatschappij,
BV v. Standard Microsystems Corp., 103 F.3d 9, 12 (2d Cir.
1997) (internal quotation and citation omitted). “Only a barely
colorable justification for the outcome reached by the arbitrator
is necessary to confirm the award.” D.H. Blair, 462 F.3d at
110 (internal quotation omitted). “It is only when the arbitrator
strays from interpretation and application of the agreement and

effectively dispense[s] his own brand of industrial justice that
his decision may be unenforceable.” Major League Baseball Players
Ass'n v. Garvey, 532 U.S. 504, 509 (2001) (internal quotation and
citation omitted); see also STMicroelectronics, N.V. v. Credit
Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC, 648 F.3d 68, 74 (2d Cir. 2011) (“the showing
required to avoid confirmation is very high”).
The evidentiary record before the Court supports confirmation
of the Award and entry of judgement against Mechanical Electrical.
The CBA was effective during the period of the alleged violation,
and Petitioner submitted the dispute to arbitration by written
submission in accordance with the terms of the CBA. (See ECF No.

1-6, Not. of Intention to Arbitrate; ECF No. 1, Pet. ¶¶ 31-35; ECF
No. 1-5, Pet. Ex. E, Arbitration Procedures.) Indeed, under the
Parties’ agreements, the arbitrator has jurisdiction to determine
disputes regarding an “[e]mployer’s obligation to contribute to
the Funds, including but not limited to Audits, Delinquencies,
interest, liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.” (ECF
No. 1, Pet. ¶ 28.)
The arbitrator reviewed Petitioner’s prehearing memorandum of
law and corresponding exhibits that “set forth in detail the basis
of [Mechanical Electrical’s] obligation to pay contributions to
the [ERISA] Plans” and noted that Mechanical Electrical failed to
submit a written submission or otherwise respond to Petitioner’s

claims for delinquent benefits. (ECF No. 1-10, Pet. Ex. J, Award
at 6.) Moreover, Mechanical Electrical executed a Stipulation
Admitting Facts recognizing it owed Petitioner contribution
delinquencies, “including the audit delinquencies sought [through
arbitration].” (ECF No. 1-10, Pet. Ex. J, Award at 7 n.4.) Having
reviewed the record evidence, the arbitrator concluded that
Mechanical Electrical “violated the CBA, ERISA, and the LMRA by
“failing to timely remit contributions required by the CBA for the
payroll periods ending November 10, 2021 through December 6, 2023”
and granted an Arbitration Award to Petitioner. (ECF No. 1-10,
Pet. Ex. J, Award at 7-9.)
There is no evidence that the arbitrator acted arbitrarily or

contrary to law, exceeded his authority, or that the Award was
subsequently vacated, corrected, or otherwise modified. See e.g.,
Beijing Shougang Mining Inv. Co., Ltd. v. Mongolia, 11 F.4th 144,
160 (2d Cir. 2021)(stating that a reviewing court should only
overturn an arbitration award if the arbitrator acted in manifest
disregard of the law). Accordingly, the Arbitration Award is
confirmed for the remaining balance of $221,615.50 as follows: (1)
the principal balance of delinquent JIB contributions totaling
$131,207.79; (2) the principal balance of delinquent DSP
contributions totaling $7,324.60; (3) interest on the principal
balance of delinquent JIB contributions up to the date of the
Arbitration Award totaling $28,276.40; (4) liquidated damages of

$52,556.71; and (5) attorney’s fees, costs, and arbitrator’s fees
of $2,250.00. (ECF No. 1, Pet. ¶¶ 46-47; ECF No. 1-11, Pet. Ex.
K, Revised Summary of Award Balance.)
II. Attorney’s Fees
In addition to confirmation of the Award, Petitioner seeks an
award of $2,667.50 in attorneys’ fees and $521.85 in costs incurred
to bring the Petition. (ECF No. 1, Pet. ¶¶ 57-58.) The Collection
Policy and Award provide for such a remedy. The Collection Policy
provides that, once legal action is commenced against a delinquent
employer, that employer is liable for attorneys’ fees and costs.
(ECF No. 1-4, Pet. Ex. D, Collection Policy at 5.) Under the
Award, Mechanical Electrical is “responsible for any costs,

including reasonable attorney’s fees, incurred by [Petitioner] in
enforcing [the arbitrator’s] Opinion and Award.” (ECF No. 1-10,
Pet. Ex. J, Award at 9.)
A court may calculate reasonable attorneys’ fees, also known
as the “lodestar,” by multiplying a “reasonable hourly rate” by a
“reasonable number of hours extended on the work.” Match Grp.,
LLC v. Beazley Underwriting Ltd., No. 22-cv-4629 (LGS) (SLC), 2023
WL 9603886, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 21, 2023) (citing Arbor Hill
Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass'n v. Cnty. of Albany, 522 F.3d
182 (2d Cir. 2008)). Based on the Court’s calculation of the
lodestar, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court grants
Petitioner a modified award of $1,099 in attorneys’ fees and

$521.85 in costs.
A. Reasonable Hourly Rate
When determining the reasonable hourly rate, courts consider
the “prevailing market rates in the community” as the rate a
“reasonable, paying client would have paid.” Lynch v. Town of
Southampton, 492 F. Supp. 2d 197, 210–11 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) (citing
Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 (1984)); Arbor Hill, 522 F.3d
at 191. The “community” is defined as the district in which the
court sits, but courts may consider an “out-of-district hourly
rate—or some rate in between the out-of-district rate sought and
the rates charged by local attorneys—in calculating the
presumptively reasonable fee if it is clear that a reasonable,

paying client would have paid those higher rates.” See Arbor
Hill, 493 F.3d at 191; Lynch, 492 F. Supp. 2d at 210–11; Polk v.
N.Y. State Dep't of Corr. Serv., 722 F.2d 23, 25 (2d Cir.
1983) (same). “After determining the amount of the presumptively
reasonable fee, the court may use its discretion to increase or
reduce the amount based on the particular circumstances of the
case.” Emerald Invs., LLC v. Porter Bridge Loan Co., No. 05-cv-
1598 (JCH), 2007 WL 1834507, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Jun 25,
2007) (quoting Chan v. Sung Yue Tung Corp., No. 03–cv-6048 (GEL),
2007 WL 1373118, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 8, 2007)).
In the Eastern District of New York, hourly rates in similar
cases range from approximately $300 to $450 for partners, $200 to

$325 for senior associates, $100 to $200 for junior associates,
and up to $90 for paralegals. Trs. of Pavers & Rd. Builders Dist.
Council Welfare, Pension, & Annuity Funds v. IKNA Constr. LLC, No.
24-cv-561, 2025 WL 447731, at *17 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2025)
(quoting Trs. of Plumbers Loc. Union No. 1 Welfare Fund v. Tri-C
Mech. Inc., No. 22-cv-1590 (AMD) (PK), 2024 WL 4290823, at *15
(E.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2024), report and recommendation adopted, 2024
WL 4287353 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2024) (determining reasonable
hourly rates for attorneys in an action seeking to recover
delinquent employer contributions to employee benefit plans).
Here, the court finds that the proposed rate of $410 per hour
requested by Ms. Adrianna R. Grancio—a partner at Virginia &

Ambinder (“V&A”) who regularly represents multiemployer benefit
plans in ERISA and LMRA litigation—to be reasonable and within the
higher range of hourly rates awarded to partners in this District.
See Trs. of Pavers, 2025 WL 447731, at *17 (awarding Ms. Grancio
an hourly rate of $333, but finding an hourly rate of up to $450
to be reasonable for partners in ERISA and LMRA cases).
The Court does not, however, find that the proposed hourly
rate of $310 for Ms. Allison Herstic to be reasonable. Although
Ms. Herstic has passed the New Jersey State Bar Examination, her
admission to the bar is still pending and “[j]udges in this
district generally compensate law clerks at the same rate as
paralegal assistants.” Burkett v. Houslanger & Assocs., PLLC, No.

19-cv-2285 (EK) (JO), 2020 WL 7000188, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. July 23,
2020) (citations omitted); see also Dajbabic v. Rick's Cafe, 995
F. Supp. 2d 210, 213 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (reducing the hourly rate for
a law clerk working before admission to the bar from $100 to $75);
(ECF No. 1, Pet. ¶ 54.) Accordingly, the Court reduces Ms.
Herstic’s hourly rate to $90. See Trs. Of Pavers, 2025 WL 447731,
at *18 (awarding legal assistants at V&A $90 per hour). The Court
also reduces the proposed hourly rate for Ms. Eva Keating, a legal
assistant, from $155 to $90. Id. (reducing proposed hourly rate
for legal assistants at V&A from $132 per hour to $90 per hour).
B. Hours Reasonably Expended
The Court next turns to the issue of whether the number of
hours expended by Petitioner's counsel was reasonable. A party

seeking attorneys' fees “must support that request with
contemporaneous time records that show ‘for each attorney, the
date, the hours expended, and the nature of the work
done.’” Cablevision Sys. N.Y. City Corp. v. Diaz, No. 01-cv–4340
(GEL) (FM), 2002 WL 31045855, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 10, 2002)
(quoting N.Y. State Ass’c for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Carey,
711 F.2d 1136, 1154 (2d Cir. 1983)); see also Kingvision Pay–Per–
View, Ltd. v. The Body Shop, No. 00-cv-1089 (LTS) (KNF), 2002 WL
393091, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2002) (denying award of attorneys'
fees where information regarding how the hours expended resulted
in the requested fees was not provided even though the requested
amount of $1,000 was reasonable). The number of hours claimed

must not be “excessive or duplicative.” LeBlanc–Sternberg v.
Fletcher, 143 F.3d 748, 764 (2d Cir. 1998); see also Hensley v.
Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983) (directing district courts to
exclude hours not “reasonably expended”).
Petitioner has provided the Court with detailed
contemporaneous time records documenting the hours worked by the
attorneys and legal assistant on this matter, and describing the
work performed. Based on these records, Petitioner seeks
compensation for a total of 8.3 hours of work on this matter from
November 14, 2024 to November 18, 2024. (ECF No. 1-12, Pet. Ex.
L, Billing Records.) Having carefully examined the billing

records, the Court finds that the number of hours charged in this
matter is “reasonable given the amount of work performed and the
fact that the case involves . . . relatively straightforward ERISA
[and LMRA] claim[s].” Trs. of the 1199 SEIU Health Care Emps.
Pension Fund v. Traymore Chemists, Inc., No. 13-cv-4070 (MKB),
2014 WL 4207589, at *13 (E.D.N.Y. June 25, 2014).
C. Calculating Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
Accordingly, based on the hourly rates set forth above, and
the number of hours billed on this matter, the Court awards $1,099
in attorney’s fees calculated as follows:

Name Hourly Rate Hours Total

Adrianna R. Grancio $410.00 1.1 $451.00

Allison Herstic $90.00 7.1 $639.00

Eva Keating $90.00 0.1 $9.00

Total 8.3 $1,099.00

Petitioner also requests $521.85 in court filing fees and
service charges. (ECF No. 1, Pet. ¶ 58.) Under Section
502(g)(2)(D) of ERISA, petitioners are entitled to recover
reasonable costs. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(D). “Filing fees and
service of process fees are specifically included in the statute,
and therefore, [Petitioner] here may recover them.” See Trs. Of
the 1199, 2014 WL 4207589 at *13 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1920; Finkel
v. Triple A Group, Inc., 708 F. Supp. 2d. 277, 290 (E.D.N.Y.
2010) (awarding $818.53 in costs for filing fees, service,

postage, and photocopying)). Based on a review of the record, the
Court finds these costs to be reasonable and compensable and awards
$521.85 in costs.
III. Interest
The Arbitration Award accounts for interest owed on the
principal amount of delinquent contributions up to the date of the
Arbitration Award. (See ECF No. 1-10, Pet. Ex. J, Award at 8-9.)
Although Petitioner did not request pre-judgment interest from the
date of the Arbitration Award to the date of judgment, the Court
has discretion to award pre-judgment interest on its own motion
and does so here. See Rhodes v. Davis, 628 F. App'x 787, 793 n.2
(2d Cir. 2015) (summary order).
District courts in the Second Circuit have exercised their

discretion to award pre-judgment interest when confirming
arbitration awards under collective bargaining agreements under
Section 301 of the LMRA where the relevant agreement indicated
that an arbitration award would be “final and binding.” See, e.g.,
Riverbay Corp. v. Serv. Emps. Int'l Union, Local 32BJ, No. 22-cv-
10944 (LJL), 2023 WL 3738984, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. May 31, 2023).
Indeed, the Second Circuit recognizes a presumption in favor of
pre-judgment interest for arbitration awards. N.Y. City &
Vicinity Dist. Council of Carpenters v. Golden Dev. & Constr.
Corp., No. 15-cv-4462 (KAM) (JO), 2016 WL 4523927, at *3 (E.D.N.Y.
Aug. 22, 2016) (citing Waterside Ocean Nav. Co. v. Int'l Nav. Ltd.,

737 F.2d 150, 154 (2d Cir. 1984)).
The LMRA does not provide a pre-judgment interest rate;
however, in awarding interest, the Court may look to state law to
determine the appropriate rate. N.Y. City Dist. Council of
Carpenters v. Tried N True Interiors LLC, No. 20-cv-51 (LGS), 2020
WL 1809323, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 2020). The common practice
within this Circuit is to grant interest at a rate of nine percent
per annum under New York state law “from the time of the award to
the date of the judgment confirming the award.” 1199SEIU United
Healthcare Workers East v. Alaris Health at Hamilton Park, No. 22-
cv-531 (LJL), 2022 WL 1080707, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 11, 2022);
N.Y. C.P.L.R. §§ 5001–04.

Here, the Arbitration Procedures provide that “the
[arbitrator’s] award shall be final and binding.” (ECF No. 1-5,
Pet. Ex. E, Arbitration Procedures at 7.) Accordingly, the Court
will award prejudgment interest on (1) the principal amount of
delinquent JIB contributions totaling $131,207.79 and (2) the
principal amount of delinquent DSP contributions totaling
$7,324.60, from January 2, 2024, the date of the Arbitration Award,
to the date of judgment confirming the award at the rate of nine
percent per annum.
Additionally, Petitioner is entitled to post-judgment
interest at the federal statutory rate as of right. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1961.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Arbitration Award is
confirmed. Petitioner is awarded judgment against Respondent in
the amount of $221,615.50 as follows: 1) the principal amount of
delinquent JIB contributions totaling $131,207.79; (2) the
principal amount of delinquent DSP contributions totaling
$7,324.60; (3) interest calculated up to the date of the
Arbitration Award on the principal amount of delinquent JIB
contributions totaling $28,276.40; (4) liquidated damages of
$52,556.71; and (5) attorney’s fees, costs, and arbitrator’s fees
of $2,250.00.
Petitioner is also entitled to pre-judgment interest on the
principal amount in delinquent JIB contributions and delinquent

DSP contributions at the rate of nine percent per annum from
January 2, 2024, the date of the Arbitration Award, to the date
judgment is entered, in an amount to be calculated by the Clerk of
Court. Petitioner shall be awarded post-judgment interest at the
rate set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a) from the date judgment is
entered until the date judgment is paid in full.
Petitioner is directed to serve a copy of this Memorandum and
Order upon Respondent and to note service on the docket within
seven days of the date of this Memorandum and Order. The Clerk of
Court is respectfully requested to enter judgment against
Respondent in accordance with this Memorandum and Order and to
close this case.
So ordered. b -
f?
Dated: October 10, 2025 ) wes ewe
Brooklyn, New York
Kiyo A. Matsumoto
United States District Judge
Eastern District of New York

19

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11167283. Public record. Not legal advice.