UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE DIS TRICT OF COLUM BIA

) LABORERS ’ INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, ) ) ) P laintif f, )

) v. ) Civil Action No. 09-620 (RMC) ) ) (consolidated w ith Civ. No. 09-1128 (RM C)) BRAND ENERG Y SERVICES L LC, et al ., ) ) Defendan ts. ) )
MEMORAN DUM OP INION Seeking to confirm an a

rbitration awa

rd in its favor on a

work jurisdiction dispute, L abore rs’ Interna tional Union of North Amer ica ( “L IUNA” ) broug ht this sui t ag ainst the employ er who failed to a ssign the w ork to L I UNA, B rand Ene rg y Service s L L C (“B rand” ), and 1 ag ainst the unions whose member s had bee n awa rded the work: Pacific Northwe st Regiona l Council of Carpente rs (“ PNRCC ”), U nited Br otherhood of Ca rpente rs and Joiners of Amer ica, Carpente rs L ocal 1849, a

nd Millwrights L ocal 1699 ( collectively the “Car penter s”). At this juncture, the Carpente rs have conce ded that the a rbitration awa

rd should be conf

irmed, but contest L IUNA’ s reque st for attorne y s’ fe es and c osts as well as dama g es. As explained below, L I UNA’ s reque st for attorne y s’ fe es and c osts will be gr anted but its claim for da mag es will be

Whil e L I UNA na

med B rand a s a def

endant in this case , the re cord doe s not refle ct that 1 L I UNA e ver se rved B rand w ith the summons and complaint. Thus, the Court has issued an orde r requiringL I UNA to either : (1) file w ith the Court proof that B rand ha s been se rved w ith a summons and complaint, or (2) pr ovide the Court with a wr itten expl anation stating g ood cause for why service of proc ess has not bee n completed. See Orde r [Dkt. # 31]
.denied. I. F ACTS When L I UNA f

iled suit for enfor ceme nt of the ar bitration awa

rd, the Car

penter s filed a se parate counter

suit, Ci vil Case No. 09-1128, a g ainst L I UNA a nd nominally

ag ainst Br and, see king a

decla ratory judgme nt that the Carpente rs ar e not bound by the awa rd. This Court consolidated the c ases a nd then stay ed them pendinga dec ision of the National L abor Relations Boa

rd (“ NL RB”) in a par allel ca se, Pacific Northwest Regional Council of Carpenters , 19-CD-499. On June 11, 2010, the NL RB issued its decision in that para llel case , finding that the NL RB did not have jur isdiction over the wor k dispute beca

use all par

ties were bound by

a Plan for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes in the Const ruction I ndustry (the “ Plan”). See Notice [Dkt. # 26], Ex . A (June 11, 2010 NL RB De cision) at 6; Am. Pet. to Confirm Arbitration [Dkt. # 3] , Ex . A (Plan). “ I n signing the Participation Ag ree ment, Reg ional Carpente rs was not
mere ly acting as an a g ent for its loca ls, but rather obta ined its own rig hts and obligations under that ag ree ment. Acc ording ly , as a pa rty to the Participation Ag ree ment, Reg ional Carpente rs is bound to the Ag ree ment’s re quirement that the Plan be used to resolve jurisdictional disputes.” NL RB De cision at 6.

The Plan Arbitrator previously had issued a de cision that the Carpe nters we re improperly

perf orming work that should have been a ssigne d to L I UNA, a nd order ed B rand to assig n the sca ffolding work in question to L I UNA. See Am. Pet. [ Dkt. #3], Ex . E (Mar . 23, 2009 Arbitrator ’s Awa

rd) ( “Ar bitrator’s Aw ard” ) at 20. Be cause the NL RB dete rmined that the pa rties wer e bound by

Plan arbitration and beca use the Ar

bitrator had de cided the w ork jurisdiction dispute, this C ourt order ed the pa rties to
-2-show ca

use why the Arbitrator’s Awa

rd should not be conf

irmed. I n response , the Carpe nters voluntarily

dismiss ed their c ountersuit, Civil Case No. 09- 1128, and filed notice that they did not oppose the e nforc ement of the Arbitrator ’s Awa rd. See Voluntary

Dismissal [ Dkt. # 28]; Notice of Non-O pposition [ Dkt. # 27]. Thus, t he Amende d Petition t o Enforc e Ar bitration will be g rante d as conc eded.

This, however , does not end the ma tter. L I UNA se eks attorne y s’ fe es and c osts as well as damag es. The Ca rpente rs oppose.

II. ANALYSIS A. Att orneys’ F ees and Costs T h e A m e r i c a n R u l e a p p l i e s r e g a r d i n g a t t o r n e ys ’ f e e s . F r e s h K i s t P r o d u c e L

. L

. C

. v . C h o i C o r p . I n c . , 3 6 2 F
. S u p p . 2 d 1 1 8 , 1 2 5 ( D
. D
. C
. 2 0 0 5 )
. U n d e r t h i s R u l e , e a c h p a r t y b e a r s h i s
o w n a t t o r n e ys ’ f

e e s , a b s e n t a n e x p l i c i t s t a t u t o r y b a s i s f o r a w a r d i n g f

e e s , i d
. , o r a b s e n t a c o n t r a c t u a l b a s i s f o r a w a r d i n g f

e e s . M c G u i r e v . R u s s e l l M i l l e r, I n c . , 1 F
. 3 d 1 3 0 6 , 1 3 1 2
- 1 3 ( 2 d C i r . 1 9 9 3 )
.

“ W h e r e a c o n t r a c t a u t h o r i z e s a n a w a r d o f a t t o r n e ys ’ f e e s , s u c h a n a w a r d b e c o m e s t h e r u l e r a t h e r t h a n t h e e x c e p t i o n . ” I

d
. a t 1 3 1 3
. I f a c ontrac t is unclear, the obligation to pay attorney s’ fe es should not be imposed. Am. Bldg. Maint. Co. v. L’Enfant Plaza Props., Inc. , 655 A.2d 858, 862 (D.C. 1995). The Plan provides, “ [a] party seeking enfor ceme nt of an Ar bitrator’s de cision . . . due to the fa ilure of a

nother pa rty to abide by

the dec ision . . . shall be reimbursed by the par ty failing to abide by

the dec ision . . . for any

attorney s’ fe es, cour

t costs, and expenses incurr ed.” Plan, Art. VI I§ 2(c) . L I UNA soug ht enforc ement of the Arbitrator ’s Awa rd due to the f

ailure of the Carpe nters to abide by the Awa rd and thus the Car

penter s are require d to reimburse L I UNA
-3-for attorney s’ fe es and c osts for this enforc ement ac tion. The Car penter s arg ue that they

are not liable for f

ees a nd costs. They

point out that the orig inal Petition t o Confirm Arbitration [Dkt. #1] neg lected to r equest a ttorney s’ fe es. The Ame nded Petition [ Dkt. # 3] also did not include a r equest for fee s. Howeve r, the Carpente rs wer e aw are that L I UNA would se ek fe es for this enforc ement ac tion, as L I UNA included a r equest for

fee s and costs in its Answer a nd Counterclaim filed in Civil Case No. 09- 1128 case
. See Civil Case No. 09- 1128, Answer & Counter cl. [Dkt. # 27] . The Supreme Court has held that a

motion for fee s is untim ely if it causes “ unfair sur

prise or pr ejudice” or violates a local rule
. W

hite v. New Hampshire , 455 U.S. 445, 454 (1982). Such ca nnot be said about L I UNA’ s reque st for fe es.

Fur ther, the Car

penter s assert that the Court’ s review ing f unction on a re quest to confirm a n arbitration awar d is lim ited , and that the Court ca nnot awar d attorney s’ fe es bec ause 2 the Arbitrator did not do so. But the Arbitrator did not do so because no suit to enforce the Awar d had bee n broug ht at that time. This Court, where the enfor ceme nt action took place , may
awa rd attorne y s’ fe es and c osts for such e nforc ement ac tion pursuant to the terms of the Plan.

The Car penter s also contend that be cause the Plan’s applica bility to the Carpente rs was a

mbiguous, the Plan’s pr ovision for attorney s’ fe es wa s ambig uous, i.e , since a contra ctual oblig ation to pay attorney s’ fe es should not be imposed when a contra ct is unclea

r, they should not be require d to pay fee s and costs. This argument fails. The N L RB dete rmined
J udicial re view of a

n arbitra tion awar d is narrow ly

limit ed. Rush Prudential HMO, Inc
. 2 v. Moran , 536 U.S. 355, 395-96 (2002). “ Allowing undue challeng es to arbitration awar ds would defe at the fina lity

and spee dy

dispute resolution expected of the a rbitration proc edure .” Rev ere Copper and Brass Inc . v. Ov erseas Private Inv. Corp. , 628F.2d 81, 83 n.1 ( D.C. Cir. 1980). -4-that the Plan applied to all of the or g anizations that comprise the Carpe nters. More over, the

Plan’s provision reg arding attorney s’ fe es and c osts its elf is not ambig uous.

Finally , the Carpe nters point out that the Plan require s eac h party to bear its own expenses for the a

rbitration. Plan, Art. VI

§ 6(f) . This fac t is not relevant. L IUNA doe s not reque st fees a

nd expenses for the a

rbitration; it requests fe es and e x penses f or this enforc ement action. As the Carpe nters have raised no va lid defense to L I UNA’ s claim for attorney s’ fee s and costs, the c ontrac tual obliga tion to pay

the costs of e nforc ement of the Arbitration Awar d will be enfor ced.

B. Dam ages L IUNA a lso seeks “da

mag es incurr ed fr om [ Def endants’] failure to comply with the Arbitration Award.” L IUNA’ s Reply to Show Cause Orde r [Dkt. # 29] . The Ar bitrator’s Awar d that L I UNA soug ht to confirm in this suit did not address the issue of damag es. B eca

use L I UNA’ s curr ent re quest for da mag es is bey ond the scope of the unde rly ing A rbitrator’ s Awar d, the re quest will be denied a s outside the jurisdiction of this C ourt. 3 III. CONCLUSION Acc ording ly , L I UNA’ s Amended Petition to Confirm Arbitration [Dkt. # 3] will be g rante d as conc eded, a nd the Marc h 23, 2009 Arbitrator ’s Awa rd will be conf

irmed. F urther, L I UNA’ s reque st for attorne y s’ fe es and c osts [ Dkt. # 29] wil l be g rante d. So that the Court can deter mine the prope r amount of f ees a nd costs to awar d, L I UNA sha ll file, no later than The pa rties dispute whethe r De fenda nts in fact complied with the Ar bitrator’s Aw ard. 3 PNRCC asser

ts that since J une 8, 2009, B rand ha s assig ned the disputed wor k to L IUNA. Shanley Aff. [Dkt. # 22], Ex . B. -5-September 15, 2010, a n aff idavit and itemized lis t of rea sonable a ttorney s’ fe es and c osts incurre d in this enforce ment action. The Carpente rs shall file a r esponse no late r than Septembe r 29, 2010; and L I UNA may file a r eply

no later tha

n October 6, 2010. L IUNA’ s reque st for damag es will be denie d.

Date: August 30, 2010 _____________/s/_____________________ ROSEMARY M. COL L YER United States District J udg e

-6-