The opinion of the court was delivered by: William J. Martini, U.S.D.J.:
Local 966, International Brotherhood of Teamsters ("Petitioner") brings this contested petition to confirm an arbitration award under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Respondents Superior Maintenance Co., Superior Maintenance of Westchester, Inc., JBC, Inc., RYB, Inc., and Tri-State Maintenance Corp. cross-move under Rule 56 for an order denying confirmation. There was no oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner's motion is GRANTED and Respondents' cross-motion is DENIED.
Petitioner was the collective bargaining representative for building service workers employed by Superior Maintenance of Westchester, Inc. and Superior Maintenance Co. (together "Superior Maintenance Group"). Petitioner did not enter into a collective bargaining agreement with Respondents JCB, Inc., Tri-State Maintenance Corp., and RYB, Inc.*fn1
On April 13, 2009, Petitioner presented Superior Maintenance Group with a grievance alleging violation of the relevant collective bargaining agreements. The dispute proceeded to arbitration.
On May 1, 2009, Petitioner appeared before arbitrator Joseph Harris. Superior Maintenance Group did not appear. On October 23, 2009, arbitrator Harris awarded Petitioner $339,820.00 for back pay, unpaid raises, unpaid vacation time, unpaid sick days, unpaid holidays, and unpaid work hours. ECF No. 15-7. The award (the "Award") also provided for interest at "legally accruable rates." Petitioner suggests 8% compounded annually as a legally accruable rate. Respondents do not contest this figure.
On October 27, 2009, a copy of the Award was sent to Superior Maintenance Group. ECF No. 15-6. On January 1, 2012, Petitioner brought the instant action to confirm the Award.
Summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, the discovery [including, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file] and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Turner v. Schering-Plough Corp., 901 F.2d 335, 340 (3d Cir. 1990). A factual dispute is genuine if a reasonable jury could find for the non-moving party, and is material if it will affect the outcome of the trial under governing substantive law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The Court considers all evidence and inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Andreoli v. Gates, 482 F.2d 641, 647 (3d Cir. 2007).*fn2
Respondents argue that the matter should be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Court finds that Respondents have waived their personal jurisdiction defense. The Court also finds that Respondents have waived their objections to confirmation. Accordingly, the Court will CONFIRM the Award.
A. Respondents Waived Their Personal Jurisdiction Defense
In their cross-motion for summary judgment, Respondents argue that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction in this matter. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(1) provides that a party waives its personal jurisdiction defense if it does not include the defense in a motion to dismiss or a responsive pleading. Defendants did not file a motion to dismiss or raise personal jurisdiction as a defense in their answer. Accordingly, Defendants have waived their ...