Judge Paul Engelmayer
TriEnda’s January 2008 contract with Primex called for arbitration of disputes. Primex sought damages and other relief in its April 2011 demand to arbitrate its claims of contract breach, unjust enrichment, and account stated. Primex and TriEnda settled after an arbitral panel’s selection. Their October 2012 stipulation agreed to a $2.66 million judgment against TriEnda on Primex’s contract-related claims. Its other claims were to be dismissed. That judgment was entered in a Dec. 5, 2012, Consent Award of Arbitrators Upon Parties’ Stipulation. In Primex’s Jan. 15, 2013, action to confirm the award, TriEnda did not comply with the court’s order to respond to Primex’s motion by March 4. District court confirmed Primex’s $2.66 million consent award. Despite neither appearing nor responding, default judgment against TriEnda was inappropriate. Rather, under D.H.Blair & Co. v. Gottdiener, Primex’s motion was treated as one for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. On the record, Primex showed no material issue of fact for trial. Not only was there no arbitration award decision to review, TriEnda consented to the award entered against it and there was likely more than a "barely colorable justification for the outcome reached."
