Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Pocasangre v. Escoba, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Maryland, Southern Division

November 28, 2018

Pocasangre
v.
Escoba, Inc. et al.,

          Morena Pocasangre PRO SE

         Dear Parties:

         A copy of the “Report and Recommendations” rendered in the above-captioned case is attached. Any objections you wish to make thereto must be made in writing and within 14 days pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) and Local Rule 301.5(b).

         After the time for filing written objections has expired, Judge Paul W. Grimm will review the “Report and Recommendations” regardless of whether you have filed written objections to it. If you should fail to file written objections within the time set forth above (or within the time of any extension specifically granted by the Court) and Judge Grimm subsequently adopts the Report and Recommendations, you will have lost your right to appeal the findings and conclusions set forth therein to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, except upon grounds of plain error.

         Very truly yours,

          Gina L. Simms, United States Magistrate Judge.

         REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

         This Report and Recommendation addresses Plaintiff Morena Pocasangre's “Renewed Motion for Sanctions” as to Defendants Escoba, Inc., Vidal Escobar, Alexander Rivera, and Rosario Rivera. (ECF No. 27). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, and Local Rule 301, the Honorable Deborah K. Chasanow referred this matter to the undersigned to review Plaintiff's motion and to make a recommendation regarding damages. (ECF No. 35). I do not believe that a hearing is necessary. L. R. 105.6. As set forth more fully below, I ultimately recommend that the Court not award damages to Plaintiff.

         I. Factual and Procedural Background

         On August 30, 2016, Plaintiff Morena Pocasangre (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Escoba, Inc., Vidal Escobar, Alexander Rivera, and Rosario Rivera (collectively, “the Defendants”) seeking to recover unpaid wages and statutory damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. §§ 3-401 et seq., and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law, Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. §§ 3-501 et seq. (ECF No. 1). On November 10, 2016, Defendants filed Answers to the Complaint denying Plaintiff's allegations and asserting several defenses on their behalf. (ECF No. 8).

         The procedural history of this case is set forth in detail in a Memorandum Opinion and Orders issued by Judge Chasanow on November 13, 2017 and April 20, 2018, respectively. (ECF Nos. 23, 34). This report contains a shorter summary of facts that I believe are relevant to addressing the Plaintiff's request for a damages award.

         On October 4, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions requesting that a default judgment be entered against the Defendants after they failed to respond to Plaintiff's discovery requests. (ECF No. 22). On November 13, 2017, Judge Chasanow denied the default judgment request and ordered the Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's discovery requests or face sanctions. (ECF No. 23). On April 9, 2018, Plaintiff renewed her motion for sanctions requesting the entry of default judgment, citing to the Defendants' failure to abide by the Court's order. (ECF No. 33). Neither of Plaintiff's motions for sanctions ever quantified her damages.

         On April 20, 2018, Judge Chasanow granted Plaintiff's renewed motion for sanctions pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(vi) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed.R.Civ.P.”), and directed the Clerk of the Court to enter default against the Defendants for failure to participate in the discovery process, (ECF No. 34).[1] (Id.). Also, on April 20, 2018, this matter was referred to me to determine the amount of Plaintiff's damages. (ECF No. 35).

         On June 19, 2018, an Order was issued directing Plaintiff to file her memorandum and any supporting materials relevant to her damages claim by July 9, 2018. (ECF No. 36). The Order also directed the Defendants to respond to that pleading by July 16, 2018, and identified August 21, 2018, as the date for the hearing on Plaintiff's motion. (Id.). The scheduling order, a copy of Judge Chasanow's April 20, 2018 Order, and letters to each of the three defendants were mailed via certified mail on or about June 19, 2018. (ECF Nos. 36, 36-1 - 36-4). Although the docket reflects that those items were sent to the Defendants, certain items were returned as “undeliverable, ” while others were apparently delivered.[2] (See e.g., ECF Nos. 38-40, 42, 43). On July 9, 2018, Plaintiff failed to file her memorandum. Thereafter, on July 24, 2018, the Court sua sponte granted Plaintiff additional time to file a pleading in support of her damages request. (ECF No. 41). The Order also directed Plaintiff to “show cause” as to why she missed the July 9, 2018 deadline. (Id.). ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.