Chartier v. Marlin Mgmt., LLC, 202 F. 3d 89 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 2000

Respondent-Appellant Marlin Management, LLC ( Marlin ) appeals from a judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Kaplan, J.), confirming an arbitration award against Marlin in favor of petitioner-appellee, Robert L. Chartier, as President of the Service Employees International Union, Local 32E, AFL-CIO (the Union ). The judgment also dismissed Marlin\u27s counterclaims for federal labor law violations. Marlin purchased a residential building located at 3205 Grand Concourse, Bronx, New York (the Building ) from respondent, 3205 Grand Concourse Corporation (the Seller ), whose managing member is respondent Martin Shapiro. The Union contended that Marlin bought the property subject to a previously negotiated Collective Bargaining Agreement ( Agreement ) between the Union and the Seller that provided for mandatory arbitration of all disputes involving the Seller and the Union, as the representative of its members. Marlin denied being subject to the Agreement or its mandatory arbitration clause. Thereafter, Marlin discharged and sought to evict the Building\u27s Superintendent, Marco A. Cardona ( Cardona ), a member of the Union, who was entitled to occupy an apartment in the building by virtue of his employment. The Civil Court for the City of New York, Bronx County (the Civil Court ) dismissed Marlin\u27s summary dispossess proceeding against Cardona, holding that Marlin was bound by the Agreement, and therefore must first follow the requirements of the arbitration clause as it related to the disputed discharge of Cardona. After the action in the Civil Court was dismissed, the Union commenced an arbitration proceeding against Marlin, although Marlin elected not to participate in the proceeding. Following the arbitrator\u27s determination that Marlin\u27s discharge of Cardona was improper, Marlin and Cardona apparently returned to Civil Court. The Civil Court approved a tentative agreement between the parties and entered an Order marking the matter off the calendar with no res judicata or collateral estoppel effect on any other proceeding[]. The district court subsequently confirmed the arbitration award, giving preclusive effect to the first decision of the Civil Court, and holding that Marlin was bound by the Agreement\u27s arbitration clause. The district court later denied Marlin\u27s motion for reconsideration, finding that the new dispossess proceeding before the Civil Court could not affect the conclusive nature of the prior Civil Court determination that Marlin was subject to the Agreement (emphasis in original). For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part and vacate in part the judgment of the district court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion