Ametepe v. Peak Time Parking, Corp.

Background

James Ametepe brought the action on behalf of himself and others similarly situated against Peak Time Parking, Corp., FIH Enterprise Inc., Sam Dar Enterprises Inc., AD Parking Inc., Zafar Majeed, Fayyaz Khan, Naveed Anjum, and Mustafa Ali Khandwalla. The settlement agreement identified Ametepe, Pedro Sabala, and Emmanuel Boadi as plaintiffs. The agreement described the dispute as relating to the plaintiffs’ employment and payment of wages.

The settlement agreement stated that no court had considered or determined the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims. The defendants denied wrongdoing and liability. The parties agreed to resolve the dispute to avoid the uncertainty, expense, time, and burden of continuing the litigation.

Settlement Terms

The defendants agreed to pay a total settlement amount of $155,000. The amount included costs and attorneys’ fees. Payment was structured as a down payment followed by 13 consecutive monthly installments, with payments directed to the plaintiffs and their counsel. The agreement also provided for mutual releases covering claims arising on or before the agreement’s execution, subject to rights and claims that cannot legally be waived.

The agreement stated that neither side would be considered a prevailing party and that neither side would seek additional attorneys’ fees or costs in the action. It also included provisions concerning truthful public statements, non-disparagement, enforcement remedies, a New York choice-of-law provision, and a procedure under which the full settlement amount could become due if the defendants failed to cure a missed payment.

Court’s Ruling

The parties jointly requested dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court found the proposed settlement fair and reasonable, incorporated the settlement agreement and its terms into the order, and dismissed the entire action—including all claims asserted by the plaintiffs—with prejudice against all defendants.

The court directed the parties to proceed according to the settlement agreement and stated that each side was responsible for its own attorneys’ fees and costs except as provided in that agreement. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement and to enter judgment against the defendants if necessary. Because the case was resolved by settlement and the agreement expressly stated that no court had decided the merits, the order did not determine whether the plaintiffs’ underlying claims were legally valid.