Ex-Seller Fails to Establish Ground for Vacating Arbitrator’s Award, Says Amazon
The Aug. 21 reply brief of former Amazon third-party seller Longyan Junkai Information Technology (see 2308220043) “inexplicably fails to address any of Amazon’s arguments” in support of its cross-motion to confirm an arbitration award in its favor and its opposition…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
to Junkai’s petition to vacate that award, said Amazon’s reply Thursday (docket 1:23-cv-04869) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in Manhattan. Junkai seeks recovery of $461,000 in sales proceeds that Amazon seized, and an arbitrator ruled it could keep when Amazon deactivated the seller’s online store for selling counterfeit goods. “Arguments to which a litigant failed to respond are waived, which is fatal” to Junkai’s vacatur petition, said Amazon’s reply. Junkai doesn’t contest that federal law “provides the legal standards for the motions to confirm and vacate” the arbitration award, it said. Junkai cites no federal authority that would provide a basis to vacate the award, it said. Junkai cites “no federal authority at all,” relying on New York state court citations that aren’t precedent in the Southern District of New York, it said. Those citations also don’t, in some cases, even concern the Federal Arbitration Act, “which governs this dispute,” it said. Junkai also doesn’t dispute that any public policy argument in support of vacatur must demonstrate the award violates New York public policy, “which would be the only narrow ground” on which the court could grant the vacatur petition, it said. Junkai’s attempt to demonstrate the arbitrator’s “manifest disregard of the law” as a basis for vacatur fails, said Amazon’s reply. Its public policy argument is “likewise meritless,” it said. Because Junkai fails to establish any ground for vacatur, the court should grant Amazon’s cross-motion and confirm the arbitrator’s “well-reasoned” award, it said.