Electric Bike Technologies, Inc. (Electric Bike) has submitted a memorandum in opposition to the motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment counterclaim in the ongoing lawsuit involving Plaintiff Jose Quezada.
The central issue in the case revolves around whether the parties agreed to settle a previously filed and dismissed federal lawsuit. Electric Bike seeks a declaration from the Court that Plaintiff’s state court lawsuit, which alleges there was a federal court settlement, is without merit and frivolous. The counterclaim does not allege an independent cause of action for sanctions. However, Electric Bike argues that by filing a cursory motion to dismiss the counterclaim, Plaintiff sidesteps the requirement of responding to the specific factual allegations that make it self-evident that Plaintiff’s complaint is not only without merit, but also frivolous.
The background of the case involves Plaintiff suing Electric Bike in the Southern District of New York, claiming that Electric Bike’s website was inaccessible to blind people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York law. The motion alleges that the Plaintiff’s law firm Mizrahi Kroub LLP had no apparent intention of litigating the lawsuit against Electric Bike, but instead aimed to leverage the “cost of defense” to obtain a “cost-of-litigation” settlement.
In August 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel offered to settle for $4,950 plus website remediation. Electric Bike’s counsel at the time, David Stein of Stein & Nieporent LLP, responded by accepting the $4,950 payment but did not address the remediation demand or other material terms. Instead, they stated that they would draft the settlement agreement. The following day, Electric Bike’s counsel clarified that confidentiality was a material term and that they did not agree to any confidentiality provision.
They further stated that if Plaintiff’s counsel insisted on confidentiality, there would be no agreement on the $4,950 settlement amount either.
This case highlights the ongoing dispute between Electric Bike Technologies and Plaintiff Jose Quezada, with Electric Bike arguing that the motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment counterclaim allows Plaintiff to avoid addressing specific allegations.
As the case proceeds, the Court’s decision will provide further insight into the validity of the counterclaim and the outcome of the lawsuit.
Electric Bike is now represented by Richard S. Mandaro of Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP and Peter J. Brann and Hannah L. Wurgaft of Brann & Isaacson.
