Jiakeshu Technology Limited v. Amazon.com Services, LLC

Background

Jiakeshu Technology Limited asked the court to set aside an arbitration award entered in favor of Amazon.com Services, LLC and Amazon.com, Inc. The Amazon respondents asked the court to confirm the award. On January 3, 2024, the court denied Jiakeshu’s petition to vacate the award and granted Amazon’s cross-motion to confirm it.

Jiakeshu then moved for relief from that judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Jiakeshu relied on allegedly newly discovered evidence: the arbitrator had previously ruled for Amazon in a 2017 matter but had not disclosed that ruling. Jiakeshu argued that the nondisclosure demonstrated arbitrator partiality and requested that the award be vacated and the matter returned to the American Arbitration Association for proceedings before an impartial decision-maker.

Legal standard

The court explained that relief based on newly discovered evidence requires the moving party to show that the evidence existed during the earlier proceeding, that the party was justifiably unaware of it despite due diligence, that the evidence was admissible and important enough probably to change the outcome, and that it was not merely cumulative or offered only to attack credibility. The court described this as a demanding standard reserved for exceptional circumstances.

Court’s analysis

The court did not decide whether Jiakeshu had been justifiably unaware of the 2017 ruling. It held that, even if Jiakeshu satisfied that requirement, the evidence would not have changed the outcome.

The court relied on a December 2023 ruling from the same court, in which Jiakeshu’s counsel had represented the plaintiff. That ruling explained that the American Arbitration Association’s rules require the association and arbitrator to keep arbitration-related matters and awards confidential unless disclosure is required by law, court order, or the parties’ agreement. The court therefore concluded that the arbitrator’s failure to disclose the 2017 ruling was not improper as a matter of law.

The court also held that the 2017 ruling did not establish evident partiality. Under the applicable standard, nondisclosure supports a finding of partiality only when a reasonable person would conclude that the arbitrator was biased toward one side. Jiakeshu identified no undisclosed conflict, relationship, or interest in the arbitration’s outcome. The fact that the arbitrator had previously ruled for Amazon, standing alone, was insufficient because adverse rulings rarely demonstrate partiality.

Disposition

Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke denied Jiakeshu’s Rule 60(b) motion and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion from the docket. The opinion does not alter the court’s earlier judgment confirming the arbitration award.