The Honor able J. Garvan Mur tha, Senior Judge of

the United States District Court for * the District of Ve rmont, sitti ng by desig nation. The Clerk of

the Court is directed to amend the off icial ca ption as set forth above
. ** 09-4257-c v Century Ver tical Sy stems, I nc. v. L ocal No. 1

U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT SUM M AR

Y O RD ER Ru lings by summary orde r do not hav e prece den tial ef f ect. Citatio n to a summary orde r f iled o n o r after Janu ary 1, 2007 , is permitted and is g overn ed by Federal R ule o f A ppe llate Proced ure 32. 1 a nd this c o u r t ’ s L o c a l R u l e 3 2 . 1 . 1 . W h e n c i t i n g a s u mm a r y o r d e r i n a d o c u me n t fi l e d wit h t his c ourt, a partymust cite eith er the F edera l Appen dixor an electron ic databa se (w ith the n otation “su mmary o r d e r ” ) . A p a r t y c i t i n g a s u mm a r y o r d e r mu s t s e r v e a c o p y o f i t o n a n y p a r t y n o t r e p r e s e n ted by co u n se l. At a stated Te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patric k Moy

nihan United States Courthouse, at 500 Pea rl Street, in the City

of Ne w York, on the 28 day

of May , two thousand ten. th Pr e se nt: JOSÉ A . CA B RA NE S, ROBERT A. K

ATZ MANN, Circuit Judges , J . GARVAN MURTHA ,

District Judge. *

____________________________________________________________ CENTURY VERTI CALSYSTEMS , I NC., doing busine ss as Pro Elevator, Plain tif f- Cou nte r-

De fe nd an t- Ap pe lla nt,
- v - No. 09-4257-c v L OCALNO. 1, I

NTERNATI ONAL

UNI ON OF EL EV AT OR

CO NST RU CTO RS, Defendant- Counter-Claimant-Appellee. **

____________________________________________________________ F or Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt: M AR TI N G RI N G ER (Jos hua A. Ma rcus, on the2 brief ), F ranklin, Gring er & Cohen, P.C., Garden City , N.Y. For Def endant- Appellee : R I C HAR D H. M AR K OW I TZ , (Matthew D
. Are man, on the brief

), Mar kowitz & Richman, New Y ork, N.Y. Appea l from the United States District Court for the Easter

n District of Ne w York (Matsumoto, J. ). ON CONSIDERATION WHE REOF, IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED, ADJUD GED, AN D D EC RE ED that th e jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt

is REVERSED. Plaintiff-appe llant Century Ver tical Sy stems, I nc., d/b/a/ Pro Elevator (“pla intiff” or “Ve rtical” ), appe als from a judgme nt of the United States District Court for the Easter n District of Ne w York ( Matsumoto, J. ) ente red Septe mber 23, 2009, g rantingsummary judgme nt in favor of def endant- appellee L ocal No. 1, I nternational Union of Elevator Constructors (“de fenda

nt” or “L ocal No. 1” ). Plaintiff initiated this action pursuant to Section 301 of the L abor Ma nag ement Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185, seekingan orde r dec laringthat Ver tical is not bound by

the terms of a n arbitration provision contained in a collec tive barg aining ag ree ment (“CB A”) betwee n L ocal No. 1 a

nd Ver tical’s “pr edec essor,” Century Industrial Service s, I nc. d/b/a Pro El e vator Se rv ic e s, Inc . ( “ Ind

us tr ia l” ). Th e dis tr ic t c ourt c on c lud e d th a t V e rt ic a l is a su c c e sso r t o In d u s tr ia l a s a

matt e r o f la w , an d is th e r e f o r e b o un d b y th e CB A ’ s ar

b it r a ti o np r o v is io n . We assume the pa

rties’ fa miliarity with the rema ining f

acts a nd proce dural history

of this case
. We r e vie w the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s g ra nt o f s umm ary

jud g me nt de novo , viewingthe evidenc e in t he lig ht m os t f

avo ra ble to t he no n- mov ingpa

rt y and dr awi nga ll r e a so na

ble inf e re nc e s in its favor
. McBridev. BIC Consumer Prods. Mfg. Co. , 5 8 3 F. 3 d 9 2 , 9 6 (2 d

C i r. 2 0 0 9 ). Ins o d o i n g,3

we “ utiliz e[] the same standa rd as the district c ourt: summary judgme nt is appropriate wher e there exis ts no ge nuine issue of mate rial fa ct and, ba sed on the undisputed fa cts, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of la

w.” D’ Am ic o v . Ci ty

of N e w York, 132 F.3d 145, 149 (2d Cir. 1998). I t is well established that “in appr opriate c ircumstance s” a suc cessor employ er c an be bound by an ar bitration provision contained in a CB A enter ed into by the pre dece ssor employ er. John W iley &Sons, Inc. v . Livingston , 376 U.S. 543, 548 (1964). The se circ umstances include , but are not limi ted to, those ca ses “whe re the contra cting employ er disappe ars into another by merg er,” id. at 549, wher e the suc cessor company expressly or impliedly

assumes the CB A, NLRB v. Burns Int’l Sec. Se rvs., Inc

. , 406 U.S. 272, 284, 286 (1972), and where the succ essor employ er is an a lter eg o of the pre dece ssor employ er, Howard Johnson Co. v. Detroit Local Joint Exe cutive B d. , 417 U.S. 249, 259 n.5 (1974). Resolution of this questi on “turns to a g reat ext ent on the pre cise fa cts involved,” thoug h, Burns , 4 06 U. S. at 27 4, and ult imate ly

de pe nd s o n w he the r t

he re e xists a

“ su bs tanti a l c on tin

uit y of identity

in the business enterpr ise befor e and a fter a chang e,” W

iley , 376 U.S. at 551. Although a

“number of fa ctors” a

re r eleva nt in making this assessment, Fall River Dy eing & Finishing Corp. v. NLRB , 4 82 U. S. 2 7, 43 (1 98 7) , th e c ri tic a l is su e in a sse ssi ngthe su c c e sso rs hip question “is whether

there exis ts a substantial continuity of identi[t] y

of the wor

k forc e,” Local 348-S v. M

eridian Mgmt. Corp. , 583 F.3d 65, 74 ( 2d Cir. 2009) (citation and inter nal quotation
mark s o mitte d) ; see Fall River , 482 U.S. at 46 & n.12 ( noting that the “ ‘trig g ering ’ fa ct” f or deter mining whe ther a

new c ompany

is the succe ssor to the old is an overla p in the firms’ wor

k fo rc e s) ; Howard Johnson , 4 17 U. S. at 26 3 ( no tin g that a “ c on tin uit y of ide nti ty in t he bu sin e ss4

enter prise nece

ssarily includes . . . a

su bs tanti a l c on tin

uit y in t he ide nti ty

of the wo rk fo rc e a c ro ss the c ha ng e in o wn e rs hip ” ) ( e mph a sis a dd e d) ; W iley , 376 U.S. at 551 (holding that a succ essor was bound by

an ar bitration provision contained in a pr e-e x isting CBAwher e the pr edec essor merg ed into the succ essor, re sulting in a “ wholesale transfe r” of the pre dece ssor’s employ ees)
. Her e, it is undisputed that only four out of V ertica l’s fourtee n field employ ees w ere previously

associate d with I ndustrial, thus unequivocally demonstratingthe lack of overla p be tw e e n th e tw o f

ir ms’ wo rk fo rc e s. B e c a

us e the re is p la inl y

no su bs tanti a l c on tin

uit y of ide nti ty in the work for ce hir ed by Ver tical with that of Industrial’s (a nece ssary

condition for the imposit ion of arbitration on Vertica l, a non-c onsenting succe ssor, Howard Johnson , 417 U.S. at 26 3), andbecau se i t i s u nd is pu tedth at V ert ica l d idno t as su me a ny ob li gati on s u nd er t he C BA throug h a mer g er or

as an a lter eg o of Industrial, there is no basis in law or fa ct for us to c onclude that Ver tical is bound by

the CBA’ s arbitration provision. Thus, although it was e ntirely proper for the district c ourt to analy ze and weig h a var iety

of other f actor s when a ssessing the
su c c e sso rs hip qu e sti on , it e rr e d in e nti re ly dis c ounti ngthe la c k o f o ve rl a p b e tw e e n th e tw o f

ir ms’
wo rk fo rc e s. Moreove r, althoug h the district court did not rea ch def endant’ s alternative argument that Ver tical was a

signatory to the CBA, the r ecor d befor e us unquestionably makes c lear

that Industrial’s pre sident and owne r sig ned the CB A on beha lf of Industrial near ly one y ear befor e the formation of Vertica l. Nothing in the r ecor d indicates that Ve rtical late r bec ame a signatory to the CBA or

otherwise e x pressly

assumed any

of its obligations. Ac cording ly , beca use the “re cord pr esents a c lear

basis upon which to re verse the g rant of summar y judgme nt,” 24

/7 Rec ords, Inc. v . Sony Music E ntm’t, Inc. , 429 F.3d 39, 46 ( 2d Cir. 2005), we ne ed not re mand5

this case to the district cour t for fur ther c onsideration of this issue. We have c onsidered the rema inder of de fenda nt’s arguments and find them to be without
me ri t. A c c or din g ly , f

or the re a so ns se t f

or th a bo ve , th e jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt

is RE VE RSE D to the extent that it g rante d defe ndant’s motion for summary judgme nt for an or der compelling arbitration. J udg ment shall enter f or plaintiff. FOR THE COURT: CATHERI

NE O' HAGANWOL FE, CL ERK