United States District Court, D. Maryland
Lipton Hollander United States District Judge.
wage dispute litigation, plaintiffs Whitney Greene Davis and
Michael Chapman filed a collective action against Uhh Wee, We
Care Inc., d/b/a Uhh Wee We Care Assisted Living ("Uhh
Wee"); Uhh Wee, We Care Transportation, Inc. d/b/a Uhh
Wee We Care Assisted Living ("Uhh Wee
Transportation"); and Edwina Murray, the sole owner of
Uhh Wee and Uhh Wee Transportation. See ECF 1
("Complaint"). Plaintiffs requested, inter
alia, unpaid minimum and overtime wages for work
performed for Uhh Wee, a group home operator, and Uhh Wee
Transportation, a provider of transportation services.
See ECF 1 ("Complaint").
particular, plaintiffs have alleged violations of the
following statutes in connection with minimum and overtime
wages: the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et
seq.; the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law
("MWPCL"), Md. Code (2016 Repl. Vol., 2017 Supp.),
§§ 3-501 et seq, of the Labor and
Employment Article ("L.E."); and the Maryland Wage
and Hour Law ("MWHL"), L.E. §§ 3-401
the suit includes claims of quantum meruit on behalf of Davis
and Chapman; fraud and negligent misrepresentation on behalf
of Chapman; and wrongful discharge on behalf of Davis. ECF 1
at 11-16. Notably, Davis and Chapman represent different
categories of plaintiffs: Chapman sought to represent
similarly situated weekend care providers, while Davis
purports to represent similarly situated dispatchers.
9, 2017, Chapman sought to be dismissed from the suit. ECF
31-1; ECF 33. On September 11, 2017, defendant Murray filed a
motion to dismiss Chapman, relying on Chapman's prior
requests. ECF 31. I granted the motion on March 5, 2018. ECF
39. The circumstances surrounding Chapman's dismissal are
discussed, infra. Although Chapman has been
dismissed, I shall refer to "plaintiffs" in the
plural throughout this Memorandum Opinion, unless otherwise
response to Chapman's request for dismissal, on June 22,
2017, plaintiffs' counsel filed a "Motion For Leave
To Secure Intervention Of A Substitute Representative
Plaintiff." ECF 14. The Court previously addressed
portions of this motion. In particular, I vacated the
deadlines as to the joinder of additional parties, amendment
of the Complaint, and the filing of motions for conditional
certification. See ECF 21, ¶ 1; see
also ECF 14 at 5. However, the submission also asks the
Court to order defendants to provide plaintiffs with the
names and contact information of their current and former
weekend care providers for any time between three years prior
to the date of the filing of the suit (i.e., February 17,
2014), and "the present." I shall refer to this
request as the "Motion." The Motion is
oppose the Motion. ECF 29 ("Opposition").
Plaintiffs filed a reply. ECF 32 ("Reply"). With
leave of Court (ECF 40), defendants filed a surreply (ECF 41,
"Surreply") on March 5, 2018.
Motion is fully briefed and no hearing is necessary to
resolve it. See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons
that follow, I shall grant the Motion.
Factual and Procedural Background
and Davis are former employees of Uhh Wee and Uh Wee
Transportation. ECF 1, ¶ 1. Davis claims that she worked
for these companies as a dispatcher for several weeks and
that in at least one of those weeks, she worked over 40
hours. Id. ¶ 37. Moreover, she alleges that her
only compensation for her work was a $200 check. Id.
worked as a weekend care provider, ECF 1, ¶ 1. Chapman
claimed that he was not paid the required overtime wages,
even though he regularly worked 72-hour shifts for Uhh Wee.
Id. ¶¶ 20, 28, 42.
Motion (ECF 14), plaintiffs' counsel recounts that
Chapman unexpectedly asked plaintiffs' counsel to dismiss
him from the case. Id. ¶¶ 9, 10. According
to the Motion, Chapman "suddenly sent [plaintiffs']
counsel a fax message-sent from Defendants' business
address-indicating that he wished to dismiss his
claims[.]" Id. ¶ 9. Then, "during a
subsequent conversation with [plaintiffs'] counsel, Mr.
Chapman affirmed his desire to dismiss his claims but made
clear that he wished to do so without prejudice."
Id. ¶ 10.
plaintiffs' counsel claims that defendant Murray
materially altered time sheets for Chapman before providing
them to plaintiffs in discovery. Id. ¶ 6-8;
see also ECF 14-2 at 1-62 (62 time sheets for
Chapman spanning 21 months). Further, the Motion asserts that
plaintiffs' counsel discussed the altered time sheets
with Chapman just one week before Chapman
"suddenly" sought to withdraw from the case. ECF
14, ¶ 9.
plaintiffs' counsel asks the Court, among other things,
to "allow reasonable time to secure an intervenor
plaintiff to serve as representative in this proposed
collective action," taking the place of Chapman.
Id. ¶ 11. In particular, plaintiffs request
"60 days ... to move for intervention of a substitute
representative plaintiff for weekend care providers."
ECF 14-1 (plaintiffs' proposed order) ¶ 4; see
also ECF 14 at 5. Further, to help identify an
intervenor to replace Chapman, plaintiffs' counsel asks
the court to order defendants to provide "the names and
any and all contact information of each and every other care
provider who worked on weekends at Defendants' group
homes at any time from 3 years prior to date of filing of the
Complaint through the present." ECF 14 at 5; see
also ECF 14-1, ¶ 3.
29, 2017-one week after plaintiffs filed the
Motion-defendants' counsel filed a "Motion to
Withdraw Appearance" (ECF 17), stating that he had been
discharged by Murray. Id. ¶ 3; see
also ECF 17-3 (letter from counsel to Murray citing
their "irreconcilable ...