An arbitrator's remarks that he feared ruling against Uber Inc. in a class action over its "surge" pricing model were simply a poor attempt at humor that did not warrant wiping out an award in favor of the multinational ride-hailing company, a Manhattan federal judge ruled on Monday.

The ruling, from U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff of the Southern District of New York, upheld Uber's February win in a 2015 antitrust lawsuit against the company and its then-CEO Travis Kalanick, which had claimed that Uber had conspired with its drivers to overcharge for fares during periods of exceptionally high demand.

The plaintiff, Spencer Meyer, and his Harter Secrest & Emery attorneys moved to vacate the award on the basis that the court-appointed arbitrator, Les J. Weinstein, was "starstruck" by Kalanick and had expressed his "fear" that ruling against Uber could jeopardize his safety.

According to court papers, Weinstein, a former patent litigator, said at the close of the third day's session that "I must say I act out of fear. My fear is if I ruled Uber illegal, I would need security."

"I wouldn't be able to walk the streets at night. People would be after me," Weinstein said, according to the papers.

Meyer's attorneys also accused the arbitrator of snapping a photo of Kalanick on his phone, after the ex-executive testified.

Rakoff, however, on Monday dismissed the concerns as unfounded. In a nine-page ruling, Rakoff noted that plaintiff attorneys had waited more than three months to raise concerns about the arbitrator's impartiality, and said they had fallen well short of the mark for proving Weinstein's alleged bias.

"After carefully reviewing the full record, the Court finds that the arbitrator's concluding remarks, rather than a sincere confession of fear, were simply an attempt at humor—one of many made by the arbitrator throughout the hearing," wrote Rakoff, known himself for his tendency to crack jokes from the bench.

He continued: "While perhaps inappropriate (or, worse yet, not as humorous as some of the arbitrator's better jokes), the remarks are not inconsistent with impartiality once their patently jestful intent is recognized."

As for the supposed photo-taking incident, Rakoff cited varying accounts in saying there was "some doubt as to whether it had actually occurred." But even if it did, Rakoff said, such conduct did not rise to a level that would justify vacating the award.

"Given the history of dubious conduct by Mr. Kalanick's subordinates when Mr. Kalanick was the only defendant in this case, such alleged hero-worship seems doubtful on its face," Rakoff said. "But in any case, plaintiff's speculation is just that—speculation—which is insufficient to justify vacatur."

An attorney for Meyer was not immediately available to comment.

Ted Boutrous, who represented Uber in the litigation, did not immediately respond Monday to a request for comment.

Meyer was represented by Brian Feldman, Edwin Larkin III and Jeffrey A. Wadsworth of Harter, Secrest & Emery.

The case was captioned Meyer v. Uber.

READ MORE: