Nicholas Peterson v. M.J.J., Inc.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:16-cv-03629-JKB. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000283055]. [17-2088]

Appeal: 17-2088

Doc: 13

Filed: 04/26/2018

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-2088

NICHOLAS PETERSON; JENA B. DANSON; CALI FITZGERALD, On Behalf
of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
and
JANE LYNN HUBE; RYAN SCHOCHET; ERICA LYNN BLUNT; ROBYN
SLACK; CLAUDIA CHAPPELLE; JEFFREY STREET,
Plaintiffs,
v.
M.J.J., INC., trading as The Suburban House; MARK HOROWITZ,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:16-cv-03629-JKB)

Submitted: March 29, 2018

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Decided: April 26, 2018

Appeal: 17-2088

Doc: 13

Filed: 04/26/2018

Pg: 2 of 3

Howard Benjamin Hoffman, HOWARD B. HOFFMAN, ESQ, ATTORNEY AT LAW,
Rockville, Maryland; Stephen Jon Springer, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellants.
Mark Horowitz, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 17-2088

Doc: 13

Filed: 04/26/2018

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Nicholas Peterson, Jena B. Danson, and Cali Fitzgerald appeal the district court’s
order dismissing their civil action alleging that the Defendants violated the minimum wage
and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 201-219 (West
2018), the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. §§ 3-401 to 3431 (LexisNexis 2016 & Supp. 2017), and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection
Law, Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. §§ 3-501 to 3-509 (LexisNexis 2016). We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons
stated by the district court. Peterson v. M.J.J., Inc., No. 1:16-cv-03629-JKB (D. Md., Sept.
14, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3