Hill v. Amtec, LLC et al

Filing 43

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge J. Frederick Motz on 12/15/09. (bmh, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND MARY HILL, v. AMTEC, INC., ET AL. * * * Civil No. JFM-09-1268 * * ***** MEMORANDUM

In the order I issued on October 23, 2009, I granted Defendant AMTECs motion to dismiss in part, specifically dismissing Plaintiff Mary Hills ("Plaintiff") Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law ("MWPCL") claims. Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration of this portion of my ruling, asking this Court to (1) reconsider the dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 59(e); (2) make amended or additional filings pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 52(b); or (3) direct entry of a final judgment upon the MWPCL claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 54(b) so that Plaintiff can pursue an appeal. The motion for reconsideration is denied. As I noted in a letter to counsel dated October 23, 2009, the MWPCL does not regulate overtime. In that letter, I directed the parties to McLaughlin v. Murphy, 372 F. Supp. 2d 465, 474 (D. Md. 2004). In McLaughlin, the plaintiff raised a MWPCL claim for payment of minimum wage and overtime allegedly due, and the court determined that "the MWPCL does not contain provisions regulating minimum wage and overtime; such provisions are contained in the Maryland Wage and Hour Law (,,MWHL), which basically tracks the FLSA." Id. at 474 (internal citation omitted). As in that case, Plaintiff here "does not allege that [Defendant] failed to pay [her] regularly, but that it failed to pay [her] enough." Id. at 475. This allegation fails to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted under the MWPCL. No amended or additional filings are needed as Plaintiff may review McLaughlin for further explanation. See id. at 475-77. Plaintiff has requested that I clarify whether my dismissal of her MWPCL claims are with or without prejudice. Because I find the claims fail as a matter of law, the dismissal is with prejudice. Finally, recognizing that certification under Rule 54 is the "exception rather than the norm," and finding no persuasive reason to grant it here, I deny Plaintiffs request for certification. Braswell Shipyards, Inc. v. Beazer East, Inc., 2 F.3d 1331, 1335 (4th Cir. 1993). For these reasons, Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration is denied. A separate order to that effect is being entered herewith.

DATE: 12/15/2009

___/s/__________________ J. Frederick Motz United States District Judge