Clancy v. Skyline Grill, LLC et al

Filing 27

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Ellen L. Hollander on 2/19/2013. (aos, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
THOMAS CLANCY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. ELH-12-1598

SKYLINE GRILL, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff Thomas Clancy filed a five-count Complaint on May 30, 2012, alleging that
Skyline Grill, LLC (“Skyline”) and its co-owners, Marcus Donovan and William Mulholland,
defendants, failed to pay plaintiff regular and overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. (Count 1); the Maryland Wage Payment
Collection Law (“MWPCL”), Md. Code (2008 Repl. Vol., 2012 Supp.), Lab. & Empl. $ 3-501,
et seq. (Count 2); and the Maryland Wage and Hour Law (“MWHL”), Md. Code, Lab. & Empl.
§ 3-401, et seq. (Count 3); and that defendants are liable for breach of contract (Count 4) and in
quantum meruit (Count 5).
Presently pending before the Court are plaintiff’s “Motion for Default Judgment as to
Skyline Grill” (“Skyline Motion,” ECF 10), “Motion for Default Judgment as to Individual
Defendants” (“Individual Defendants Motion,” ECF 23), and “Plaintiff’s Bill of Costs and/or
Motion for Attorney’s Fees” (“Attorney’s Fees Motion” ECF 18). A Report & Recommendation
has been issued as to each motion. See ECF 17 (Report and Recommendation as to Skyline
Motion, “Skyline R&R”); ECF 24 (Report and Recommendation as to Attorney’s Fees,

“Attorney’s Fees R&R”); ECF 26 (Report and Recommendation as to Individual Defendants
Motion, “Individual Defendants R&R”) (collectively, the “R&Rs”).
No objections have been filed to any Report and Recommendation, and the time for filing
objections to each Report and Recommendation has passed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Local
Rule 301.5(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). No hearing is necessary to resolve these motions. See Local
Rule 105.6. For the reasons discussed below, I will adopt the R&Rs.
Background
Skyline was served with the summons and complaint on June 14, 2012, by certified mail
to its resident agent, the Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxation. See ECF 6.
Donovan was served on July 3, 2012. See ECF 7. Mulholland was served on August 12, 2012.
See ECF 13. None of the defendants filed an Answer or otherwise responded to the Complaint.
On July 12, 2012, plaintiff filed a Motion for Entry of Default as to Skyline (ECF 8),
which was granted on July 16, 2012 (ECF 9). Thereafter, on July 18, 2012, plaintiff filed the
Skyline Motion (ECF 10), seeking monetary damages, interest, attorney’s fees, and costs. On
August 15, 2012, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(D) and 72(b), and Local
Rule 301.6, the matter was referred to then-Chief Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm (now District
Judge) for a Report and Recommendation as to the Skyline Motion (ECF 15). On November 5,
2012, Judge Grimm issued a thorough and well reasoned report and recommendation, the
Skyline R&R (ECF 17), in which he recommended that the Court grant the Skyline Motion and
award plaintiff a total of $18,641.52 for unpaid wages and overtime compensation, as well as
$400.00 in costs and post-judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961. See Skyline R&R at 21.

-2-

On November 19, 2011, pursuant to Judge Grimm’s Skyline R&R, see id., plaintiff filed
the Attorney’s fees Motion, seeking $26,211 in attorney’s fees. See Attorney’s Fees Motion at 5.
Judge Grimm filed the Attorney’s Fees R&R on December 5, 2012 (ECF 24), in which he
recommended an award of attorney’s fees to plaintiff in the amount of $25,389.50.

See

Attorney’s Fees R&R at 5. Further, Judge Grimm recommended the deferral of an award of fees
for counsel’s preparation of a motion as to judgment with respect to the individual defendants,
until such time as a default judgment motion was filed against the individual defendants. See id.
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Entry of Default as to both Donovan and Mulholland (ECF
12; ECF 16), which were granted on November 30, 2012 (ECF 21; ECF 22). Thereafter, on
December 5, 2012, plaintiff filed the Individual Defendants Motion (ECF 23), seeking monetary
damages, interest, attorney’s fees, and costs. It was referred to Magistrate Judge Stephanie A.
Gallagher for a report and recommendation (ECF 25). On January 23, 2011, Judge Gallagher
issued a comprehensive and well considered report and recommendation, the Individual
Defendants R&R (ECF 26), in which she recommended that the Court grant the Individual
Defendants Motion and, incorporating the Skyline R&R and Attorney’s Fees R&R, award
plaintiff $18,641.52 as damages for unpaid wages and overtime compensation, as well as
$26,211 in legal fees and $605 in costs, for a total of $45,457.52. In addition, she recommended
the award of post-judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961. The award was to be paid jointly
and severally by all defendants. See Individual Defendants R&R at 6-7.
Together, the R&Rs recommended that default judgment be granted as to Counts One,
Two, Three, and Four, and denied as to Count Five. And, in sum, they recommended an award
of compensatory damages in the amount of $18,641.52, along with reasonable attorney’s fees in
-3-

the amount of $26,211, costs in the amount of $605, and post-judgment interest pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1961, to be paid jointly and severally by all defendants. See Skyline Grill R&R at 21;
Individual Defendants R&R at 7.
As noted, no objections or exceptions have been filed to any Report and
Recommendation.
Discussion
Under the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636, a district judge may designate a
magistrate judge to conduct hearings (if necessary) and report proposed findings of fact and
recommendations for action on a dispositive motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b); see also Local Rule 301.5(b). A motion for default judgment is a dispositive motion for
purposes of the Magistrate Judges Act. See Callier v. Gray, 167 F.3d 977, 980-82 (6th Cir.
1999); see also Local Rule 301.6(al). Requests for attorneys’ fees are also treated as dispositive
motions for purposes of referral to a magistrate judge. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(D).
A party who is aggrieved by a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation as to a
dispositive motion must file “specific written objections to the proposed findings and
recommendations” within fourteen days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The district judge must then
“determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected
to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). But, the Court “need only conduct a de novo review of those
portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation to which objection is made.”
Chavis v. Smith, 834 F. Supp. 153, 154 (D. Md. 1993). As to those portions of the report for
which there is no objection, the district court “must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error
on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life &
-4-

Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315-16 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory
committee note).
In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), I have reviewed the R&Rs for clear error.
Because they appear correct in all respects, I expressly adopt them as my own. In particular, I
adopt ECF 17, ECF 24, and ECF 26.
An appropriate Order follows.

Date: February 19, 2013

/s/
Ellen Lipton Hollander
United States District Judge

-5-