Amazon Can't Establish SDNY Has Jurisdiction Over Vacatur Petition, Says ex-Seller
Respondent Amazon “failed its burden to establish” that the Southern District of New York has subject-matter jurisdiction over the motion of former third-party seller Longyan Junkai Information Technology to remand to New York County Supreme Court its petition to vacate…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
an arbitration award in Amazon’s favor, said Junkai’s reply memorandum Tuesday (docket 1:23-cv-04869) in support of remand. 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 (see 2306270041). Amazon removed Junkai’s vacatur petition to the Southern District of New York June 9, and “the removing party bears the burden of proving that the district court has subject matter jurisdiction,” said Junkai’s reply memorandum. A federal court’s subject-matter jurisdiction “can be established through either diversity jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction,” but Amazon established neither, it said. Nor do sections 203 or 205 of the Federal Arbitration Act provide federal question jurisdiction, as Amazon contends, it said.