Ametepe et al v. Peak Time Parking, Corp. et al

Filing 47

ORDER: granting 41 Motion to Amend/Correct. For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs' motion to amend is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall file their Amended Complaint within seven (7) days of the date of this Order and shall serve AD Parking prom ptly thereafter. All fact discovery shall be completed no later than September 30, 2019. The parties shall submit a joint letter on the status of discovery on August 30, 2019. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron on 7/10/2019) (ama)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Ametepe et al,

7/10/2019
Plaintiffs,
-against-

1:18-cv-05384 (PAE) (SDA)
ORDER

Peak Time Parking, Corp. et al,
Defendants.
STEWART D. AARON, United States Magistrate Judge:
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion, pursuant to Rules 15(a)(2) and 21 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, to amend the Complaint to add AD Parking, Inc. (“AD Parking”) as a
defendant. (ECF No. 41.) For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
On June 14, 2018, Plaintiff James Ametepe (“Ametepe”) filed his Complaint against
Defendants Peak Time Parking, Corp. (“Peak Time”), FIH Enterprise Inc. and Sam Dar Enterprises
Inc. (“Sam Dar”), as well as individuals Zafar Majeed, Fayyaz Khan, Naveed Anjum, and Mustafa
Ali Khandwalla (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law. (Compl., ECF No. 7, ¶ 1.) It is alleged that the defendant
corporations “operate along with an undetermined, but significant number, of other
corporations as a single entity in the business of operating parking garages in the City of New
York” and that Ametepe was employed as a parking attendant at these garages with the
individual defendants as his “direct supervisors.” (Id. ¶ 2.)

On September 12, 2018, Emmanual Boadi (“Boadi”) filed a consent to join this case as a
plaintiff. (Consent, ECF No. 19.) On October 4, 2018, District Judge Engelmayer referred this case
to this Court for general pre-trial purposes. (Order of Reference, ECF No. 25.)
On January 8, 2019, the Court entered a Case Management Plan providing that the last
date to amend the Complaint was June 8, 2019. (Case Management Plan, ECF No. 30, ¶ 7(b).) On
June 6, 2019, as part of a joint status letter to the Court, Plaintiffs advised the Court that they
would seek to amend the Complaint to add AD Parking, Inc. as a defendant. (Status Report, ECF
No. 35.) Also on June 6, 2019, the Court entered an Order requiring that Plaintiffs file their motion
to amend no later than June 18, 2019. (6/6/19 Memo Endorsement, ECF No. 36.)
On June 18, 2019, Plaintiffs timely filed their motion to amend to add AD Parking as a
defendant. (Mot. to Amend, ECF No. 41.) The bases for adding AD Parking as a defendant, among
others, are that Defendants produced a document on May 20, 2019, stating that opt-in Plaintiff
Boadi was employed by AD Parking (as opposed to the named corporate defendants) and that
individual defendant Majeed was the Chief Executive Officer of AD Parking. (Pl. Mem., ECF No.
42, at 2-3.) In other words, Plaintiffs are asserting that AD Parking is another one of the defendant
corporations that is acting “as a single entity in the business of operating parking garages in the
City of New York.” (See proposed Amended Complaint, ECF No. 43-1, ¶ 2.)
On July 2, 2019, Defendants filed their opposition to the motion. (Def. Mem., ECF No. 45.)
Plaintiffs filed their reply on July 9, 2019. (Reply, ECF No. 46.)
LEGAL STANDARDS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that a court should “freely” grant leave to
amend “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The Second Circuit has stated that

2

“[t]his permissive standard is consistent with our strong preference for resolving disputes on the
merits.” Williams v. Citigroup Inc., 659 F.3d 208, 212-13 (2d Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted).
The decision to grant or deny leave to amend is within the trial court’s
discretion. . . . The court may deny leave to amend for “good reason,” which
involves an analysis of the factors articulated in Foman [v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178
(1962)]: undue delay, bad faith, futility of amendment, or undue prejudice to the
opposing party. . . . “Mere delay, however, absent a showing of bad faith or undue
prejudice, does not provide a basis for a district court to deny the right to
amend.” . . . While the party seeking to amend its pleading must explain any delay,
the party opposing the amendment “bears the burden of showing prejudice, bad
faith, and futility of the amendment.” . . .
Williams v. Epic Sec. Corp., 358 F. Supp. 3d 284, 293–94, 2019 WL 858678 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 allows the Court to add a party at any time. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 21. “The grant or denial of a motion to bring in or to drop a party lies in the discretion of the
judge.” Wright & Miller, 7 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1688 (3d ed.).
APPLICATION
The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ motion should be granted under the standards of Rules 15
and 21. The grounds asserted by Defendants for denial of the motion are lacking in merit.
First, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs have unduly delayed in making their motion to
amend since it was filed after the June 8, 2019 deadline set forth in the Case Management Plan.
(See Def. Mem. at 4-5.) This contention is meritless since on June 6, 2019, before the deadline
passed, the Court imposed a new, later deadline of June 18, 2019 for filing the motion to amend.
(6/16/19 Memo Endorsement.) Plaintiffs timely filed their motion to amend on June 18, 2019.
Second, Defendants argue that the proposed amendment would be futile based upon
facts outside of the pleading relating to opt-in Plaintiff Boadi. (Def. Mem. at 6-10.) However, the

3

proposed Amended Complaint is not limited by the peculiar facts relating to Boadi.1 The
proposed Amended Complaint alleges that the proposed additional defendant, AD Parking, was
one of the corporations acting as a “single entity” in operating parking garages. (See proposed
Amended Complaint ¶ 2.) Moreover, Plaintiffs have provided to the Court documentary evidence
to support this allegation. (See, e.g., Maguire Decl., Exs. C, D & F, ECF Nos. 43-3, 43-4 & 43-6.)
Thus, the Court finds that the proposed amendment is not futile.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs’ motion to amend is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall
file their Amended Complaint within seven (7) days of the date of this Order and shall serve AD
Parking promptly thereafter. All fact discovery shall be completed no later than September 30,
2019. The parties shall submit a joint letter on the status of discovery on August 30, 2019.
SO ORDERED.
DATED:

New York, New York
July 10, 2019
______________________________
STEWART D. AARON
United States Magistrate Judge

1

Even if the motion to amend were limited to Boadi, which it is not, it is not appropriate for the Court to
address issues of fact outside the pleadings on a motion to amend (for example, the length of his
employment or whether he had a work authorization). (See Def. Mem. at 6; Majeed Decl., ECF No. 45-1.)
These are factual issues to be resolved during the course of the litigation. (See Reply at 6-7.)
4