Amazon Presses for Rule 11 Sanctions vs. Opposing Lawyer, Cites Frivolous Motion
Because a former Amazon third-party seller and its counsel don’t and can’t articulate any “non-frivolous basis” for the seller’s unsuccessful motion to remand its vacatur petition to New York Supreme Court, U.S. District Judge Jennifer Rochon for Southern New York…
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.
in Manhattan should impose sanctions against Julie Guo and her JS Law Office for violating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b), said Amazon’s reply brief Thursday (docket 1:23-cv-03334) in support of its Jan. 15 motion for sanctions (see 2401120032). Amazon contends it’s entitled to monetary sanctions equaling the attorneys’ fees and court costs it incurred in defending against Shenzhen Zongheng Domain Network Co.'s remand motion. Zongheng sought to vacate an arbitration award in Amazon’s favor and to recover the $508,000 in sales proceeds that Amazon seized, and the arbitrator let it keep, when it deactivated the seller’s account for manipulating customer product reviews. Rochon rejected the remand motion and ultimately denied the vacatur petition itself. Zongheng’s motion for reconsideration of that denial is pending.