PandaVida, Inc. v. Amazon.com Services LLC, e a/
- Gregory Woods
- 1:25-cv-06177
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In PandaVida v. Amazon, Judge Woods ordered briefing and supporting materials for PandaVida’s petition to vacate an arbitration award.
PandaVida, Inc. and the respondents in the proceeding challenging the arbitration award.
What happened
In PandaVida, Inc. v. Amazon.com Services LLC, PandaVida filed a petition asking the court to vacate an arbitration award on July 28, 2025.
The court ordered PandaVida to file and serve its legal memorandum, a statement required by Local Civil Rule 56.1, and supporting materials by October 31, 2025. The respondents’ opposition is due three weeks after receiving those materials, and PandaVida’s reply, if any, is due two weeks after receiving the opposition.
Judge Gregory H. Woods entered the order on September 26, 2025. The order set the briefing schedule and did not decide whether the arbitration award should be vacated.
The detailed version
- PandaVida, Inc. v. Amazon.com Services LLC, e a/ · No. 1:25-cv-06177
- Gregory Woods
- Sept. 26, 2025
Background
PandaVida filed a petition on July 28, 2025, asking the court to vacate an arbitration award. The opinion states that proceedings to vacate an arbitration award are treated similarly to a motion for summary judgment, meaning the parties must support their positions with legal arguments and evidence.
Order
The court ordered PandaVida to file and serve, no later than October 31, 2025:
- a memorandum of law; - a statement required by Local Civil Rule 56.1; and - any additional supporting materials, including affidavits or declarations confirming that the petition’s exhibits are true and correct copies of the documents they appear to be.
The respondents’ opposition is due no later than three weeks after service of PandaVida’s materials. PandaVida’s reply, if any, is due no later than two weeks after service of the respondents’ opposition.
Effect of the Order
The order establishes the schedule and required submissions for the arbitration-award challenge. It does not rule on the merits of PandaVida’s petition or decide whether the award should be vacated.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.