United States District Court, D. Maryland
L. HOLLANDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
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.
See ECF 1 ("Complaint"). They asserted
wage and overtime claims under 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
29, 2017, Aaron Turner, Esq., counsel for defendants, filed a
"Motion to Withdraw Appearance" (ECF 17), stating
that he had been discharged by Murray. Id. ¶ 3.
By Order of that same date (ECF 18), I granted the motion to
on August 2, 2017, Kenneth Gauvey entered his appearance on
behalf of the defendants. ECF 26. By Order of August 28, 2018
(ECF 50), while defendants were represented, the Court
ordered defendants to provide plaintiff, by September 27,
2018, "with the names and all contact information within
defendants' possession, custody, or control, of every
other care provider-regardless of whether they are
independent contractors or employees of any third
parrywho worked at least one weekend at
any of defendants' group homes at any time from February
17, 2014, through June 30, 2017."
October 10, 2018, after defendants failed to comply with the
Order of August 28, 2018 (ECF 50), plaintiff filed a motion
for sanctions and attorney's fees. ECF 52. That motion is
after, on October 23, 2018, Gauvey filed a "Motion to
Withdraw as Attorney" (ECF 53), citing unspecified
"issues and causes." Id. ¶¶ 1-2.
By Order of that same date (ECF 56), I granted his motion to
withdraw. Then, on December 17, 2018, I denied Murray's
request for court-appointed counsel. ECF 58; ECF 59.
Moreover, the Court advised Ms. Murray that Uhh Wee and Uhh
Wee Transporation, as corporations, "may only appear
through counsel." ECF 59 at 2. But, she was also told
that she may represent herself. Id.; see
also ECF 19 (Clerk advisement of June 29, 2017); ECF 57
(Clerk advisement of October 23, 2018).
lawyer entered an appearance for the corporate defendants.
Accordingly, on January 28, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion
for Clerk's entry of default (ECF 61) as to defendants
Uhh Wee and Uhh Wee Transportation. On February 1, 2019, the
Clerk entered a default as to both entities. ECF 64. On
February 5, 2019, Ms. Murray opposed the Clerk's entry of
default as to the entity defendants. ECF 67. However, Ms.
Murray may not act as counsel for the entity defendants.
See Roland v. Cal. Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194,
201 (1993) ("[It] has been the law for the better part
of two centuries .. . that a corporation may appear in the
federal courts only through licensed counsel.").
Murray has had seven months to provide the names and contact
information that are the subject of my Order of August 28,
2018 (ECF 50). Accordingly, by May 1, 2019, Ms. Murray shall
comply with the Order of August 28, 2018. If she fails to
comply without good cause, the Court shall impose sanctions
to plaintiffs "Request to Modify the Amended Scheduling
Order" (ECF 62), filed on January 28, 2019. It was
prompted by my decision to modify the Scheduling Order on
January 15, 2019, because it had become stale, under the
circumstances. See ECF 60 (Amended Scheduling
Order); ECF 13 (Scheduling Order).
Civ. P. 16(b)(4) provides that a scheduling order may be
modified "only for good cause and with the judge's
consent." Plaintiff claims that she will not seek
conditional certification. ECF 62, ¶ 5. Therefore,
plaintiff asks the Court to delete the reference in the
Amended Scheduling Order to a motion for conditional
certification. Id. ¶ 6. Because time for
conditional certification will not be needed, the Court shall
grant the Request to Modify the Amended Scheduling Order.
also, seeks a discovery deadline of "90 days following
Defendants' production of the information ordered to be
produced in the Court's Order of August 28, 2018."
Id. The request is reasonable and shall be granted.
Murray has filed a Motion for the Appointment of Counsel (ECF
63) and a Motion for Delay of Amending Scheduling Orders (ECF
66), on behalf of Uhh Wee. As explained, Ms. Murray cannot
act as counsel for the entity defendants. Accordingly, I
shall treat both motions as if Ms. Murray had filed them
solely on her own behalf.
Motion for the Appointment of Counsel, Ms. Murray maintains
that she needs legal representation to present her case. ECF
63. As I explained in the Order of December 17, 2018, 1 see
no basis to appoint counsel for Ms. Murray. She claims to be
indigent. Id. But, indigency itself is not
sufficient. Ms. Murray has demonstrated the wherewithal to
articulate the legal and factual basis of her claims for
herself. Further, there are no exceptional circumstances that
would warrant the appointment of an attorney to represent her
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), which provides that a
federal district court "may request an attorney to
represent any person unable to afford counsel."
Accordingly, I shall deny her request for
Motion for Delay of Amending Scheduling Orders is also
unavailing. Yet again, Ms. Murray seeks appointment of
counsel. ECF 66. Additionally, she seeks "a delay in
submitting Scheduling Orders" because she must
"proceed without the benefit of legal assistance."
Id. Ms. Murray has had several months to obtain
counsel and produce the required documents. Ms. Murray has
not shown ...