Opinion
1:18-CV-350 (FJS/DJS)
01-26-2022
HONG WANG, Plaintiff, v. PRECISION EXTRUSION, INC. and PEXCO, LLC, Defendants.
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL MELTZER, LIPPE, GOLDSTEIN & BREITSTONE, LLP ASISH NELLUVELY, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiff FITZGERALD MORRIS BAKER FIRTH, P.C. JOHN D. ASPLAND, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiff BARCLAY DAMON LLP BRIENNA L. CHRISTIANO, ESQ. Attorneys for Defendants MONACO COOPER LAMME & CARR, PLLC ADAM H. COOPER, ESQ. Attorneys for Defendants NELSON MULLINS GREGORY MICHAEL O'NEIL, ESQ. Attorneys for Defendants MARTIN, HARDING & MAZZOTTI, LLP MATTHEW J. DILLON, ESQ. Attorneys for Defendants BESTPASS, INC. WILLIAM J. DECAIRE, ESQ. Attorneys for Defendants
APPEARANCES OF
COUNSEL
MELTZER, LIPPE, GOLDSTEIN & BREITSTONE, LLP
ASISH NELLUVELY, ESQ.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
FITZGERALD MORRIS BAKER FIRTH, P.C.
JOHN D. ASPLAND, ESQ.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
BARCLAY DAMON LLP
BRIENNA L. CHRISTIANO, ESQ.
Attorneys for Defendants
MONACO COOPER LAMME & CARR, PLLC
ADAM H. COOPER, ESQ.
Attorneys for Defendants
NELSON MULLINS
GREGORY MICHAEL O'NEIL, ESQ.
Attorneys for Defendants
MARTIN, HARDING & MAZZOTTI, LLP
MATTHEW J. DILLON, ESQ.
Attorneys for Defendants
BESTPASS, INC.
WILLIAM J. DECAIRE, ESQ.
Attorneys for Defendants
ORDER
Frederick J. Scullin, Jr. Senior United States District Judge
Plaintiff filed her complaint against Defendants on March 20, 2018. See Dkt. No. 1. In a Memorandum-Decision and Order dated June 26, 2018, this Court, among other things, dismissed Plaintiff's Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, Tenth, Twelfth, and Fourteenth Causes of Action, all of which were based on alleged violations of New York Executive Law and found that, because Plaintiff's First, Second, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, Eleventh, Thirteenth, and Fifteenth Causes of Action were subject to mandatory arbitration pursuant to Section 17 of Plaintiff's Employment agreement, those claims must proceed through arbitration. See generally Dkt. No. 31.
Defendants now petition the Court pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 9 (the "FAA") to confirm an Arbitration Award and Decision dated April 24, 2020, in which the Arbitrator dismissed all claims of discrimination, hostile work environment and retaliation that Plaintiff Hong Wong had brought against Defendants under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and ordered relief on other related arbitration claims between the parties as fully described in the Award and Decision. See Dkt. No. 43. Plaintiff did not file any papers in opposition to Defendants' motion.
"'[T]he confirmation of an arbitration award is a summary proceeding that merely makes what is already a final arbitration award a judgment of the court.'" New York City Dist. Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Par Flooring Co., No. 04 Civ. 8486 RJH, 2005 WL 525451, *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2005) (quoting Florasynth, Inc. v. Pickholz, 750 F.2d 171, 176 (2d Cir. 1984)). Pursuant to § 9 of the FAA, "upon timely application by any party, a court must grant an order to confirm an arbitration award unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected as prescribed in §§ 10 and 11 of the FAA." Id. (citing Marsillo v. Geniton, No. 03 Civ. 2117 (TPG), 2004 WL 1207925, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 2004)).
In this case, Defendants petitioned the Court to confirm the arbitration award on April 23, 2021, within one-year of the date of the arbitration award as § 9 of the FAA requires. Furthermore, none of the parties to the award made an application to vacate, modify or correct the Award and Decision and the time do so has expired. See 9 U.S.C. § 12. Finally, Plaintiff did not oppose Defendants' motion to confirm the arbitration award within the time she was required to do so. Accordingly, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Defendants' motion to confirm the arbitration award in all respects, see Dkt. No. 43, is GRANTED; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Defendants and close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.