Buckson v. MVM, Inc.

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge James K. Bredar on 10/30/14. (jnls, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
*
ROLANDA BUCKSON,

*

Plaintiff

*

v.

*

MVM, INC.,
Defendant
*
*

CIVIL NO. JKB-14-2160

*
*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM
This case involves Plaintiff Rolanda Buckson’s claim that Defendant MVM, Inc., did not
pay her minimum wage or overtime wages in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act,
(“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law (“MWHL”), Md. Code
Ann., Lab. & Empl. §§ 3-401—3-431 (LexisNexis 2008 & Supp. 2013), and the Maryland Wage
Payment and Collection Law (“MWPCL”), Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. § 3-501 et seq.
(Compl., ECF No. 1.) Her complaint includes allegations in support of a collective action and a
class action. MVM filed a motion to dismiss the complaint (ECF No. 7), but this was mooted by
Buckson’s filing of an amended complaint (ECF No. 11).
On the day that MVM’s response to the amended complaint was due, MVM filed a notice
of Buckson’s acceptance of MVM’s offer of judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 68 and requested that the Court enter the judgment agreed to by the parties. (ECF
No. 15.) Shortly thereafter, and on the same day, MVM filed a motion to dismiss Buckson’s
amended complaint with prejudice based on MVM’s argument that MVM’s offer mooted
Buckson’s case. (ECF Nos. 16 & 17.)

Although MVM’s motion presents an interesting issue were the Court faced with an
unaccepted offer of judgment, no logical reason exists to grant the motion to dismiss with
prejudice given that the Court is about to enter a consent judgment in Buckson’s favor against
MVM. The judgment will dispose of the entire case including the collective and class action
allegations, which never ripened into being; Buckson is the only plaintiff in this action. Nothing
will be left to dismiss. See Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 133 S. Ct. 1523, 1529 (2013)
(FLSA suit never designated by district court as collective action before offer of judgment was
made; offer to lone plaintiff mooted collective action aspects).
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that MVM’s motion to dismiss the original
complaint (ECF No. 7) is MOOT and that MVM’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint
with prejudice (ECF No. 16) is MOOT. A separate judgment will enter.
DATED this 30th day of October, 2014.

BY THE COURT:

/s/
James K. Bredar
United States District Judge

2