Calder et al v. GGC-Baltimore, LLC

Filing 53

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Magistrate Judge Beth P. Gesner on 2/28/14. (c/m 2/28/14 jnls, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
JENNIFER MCDANIEL, et al.,

*

Plaintiffs,

*
Civil No. BPG-12-2350

v.

*

GGC-BALTIMORE, LLC,

*

Defendant.
*

*

*

*

*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM

Currently pending is defendant’s Motion for Sanctions against Plaintiff Brieann N.
Gagliano (ECF No. 39), defendant’s Motion for Sanctions against Plaintiff Jennifer McDaniel
(ECF No. 40), defendant’s Renewed Motion for Sanctions against Plaintiff Brieann N. Gagliano
(ECF No. 45), and defendant’s Renewed Motion for Sanctions against Plaintiff Jennifer
McDaniel (ECF No. 46) (collectively, “Defendant’s Motions”). No oppositions were filed. I
have reviewed Defendant’s Motions. No hearing is deemed necessary. Loc. R. 105.6. For the
reasons stated below, Defendant’s Motions will be granted in part and denied in part.
Plaintiffs Brieann Gagliano and Jennifer McDaniel (“plaintiffs”) are the remaining
plaintiffs in a suit in which former exotic dancers sued GGC-Baltimore, LLC d/b/a The
Gentlemen’s Gold Club (“defendant”) for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Maryland Wage and Hour Law, and the Maryland Wage Payment Collection Law. (Complaint,
ECF No. 1.) On February 3, 2014, plaintiffs Latoya Calder and Rashedia Talley and defendant
1

filed a Notice of Dismissal of all claims with prejudice against each other (ECF No. 47), which
the undersigned approved by margin order (ECF No. 50).
Plaintiffs’ counsel Gregg Greenberg filed Consent Motions to Withdraw as counsel for
Jennifer McDaniel on December 5, 2013 (ECF No. 33) and for Brieann Gagliano on December
9, 2013 (ECF No. 34). The undersigned granted Counsel Greenberg’s motions. (Orders, ECF
Nos. 35, 36.) The undersigned and the Clerk of court notified plaintiffs that they would be
deemed to be proceeding without counsel unless and until new counsel entered an appearance on
their behalf. (Id.; Local Rule 101.2 Notice, ECF Nos. 37, 38.)
On January 6, 2014, defendant filed Motions for Sanctions against Brieann Gagliano
(ECF No. 39) and Jennifer McDaniel (ECF No. 40), alleging that plaintiffs failed to respond to
defendant’s discovery requests despite repeated extensions and attempts by defendant to contact
plaintiffs. On January 8, 2014, the undersigned ordered plaintiffs to respond to defendant’s
discovery requests. (ECF Nos. 41, 42.) Defendant filed Renewed Motions for Sanctions against
Brieann Gagliano (ECF No. 45) and Jennifer McDaniel (ECF No. 46) on January 31, 2014,
reiterating that plaintiffs have neither responded to discovery requests nor contacted counsel. On
February 4, 2014, the undersigned ordered plaintiffs to file oppositions to Defendant’s Motions
by February 18, 2014 and advised that, if no oppositions were filed by that date, Defendant’s
Motions would be treated as unopposed and plaintiffs’ cases would be dismissed. (Order, ECF
No. 49.) Plaintiffs have failed to file oppositions to defendant’s Motions for Sanctions (ECF
Nos. 39, 40) and defendant’s Renewed Motions for Sanctions (ECF Nos. 45, 46), have not

2

responded to defendant’s discovery requests, or have failed to otherwise participate in this case.
Accordingly, dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice is appropriate.1
A separate Order will be issued.

2/28/14
Date

1

/s/
Beth P. Gesner
United States Magistrate Judge

Dismissing plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice is not appropriate at this time given the absence of
any communications between plaintiffs and the court.
3