Ramnarine v. Rainbow Child Dev. Ctr.
| Decision Date | 04 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL PWG-17-cv-02261 |
| Parties | RENA ANNE RAMNARINE Plaintiff v. RAINBOW CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC., et al. Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is a case concerning a childcare center's failure to adequately pay one of its employees in accordance with state law. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Rena Anne Ramnarine's Motion for Attorney's Fees, ECF No. 154 and Bill of Costs. ECF No. 155. This case has been referred to my chambers for a report and recommendation. ECF No. 175. Upon review of the pending Motion and Bill of Costs, the responses thereto, and the Replies in support thereof, I recommend that the Motion and Bill be granted, in part, and denied, in part.
On August 9, 2017, Rena Anne Ramnarine filed a class action complaint against the Rainbow Child Development Center (RCDC), Rainbow Academy, Inc. (RA), Kim Terese Mitchell, LLC - three Maryland-based corporations that operate multiple child-care centers in the State - and Kim Terese Mitchell owner of RCDC and RA. ECF No. 1, at 2-4. Plaintiff specifically alleged that Defendants employed her and other similarly situated individuals, working them in excess of forty hours per week while failing to pay them for all the hours they worked and failing to provide an increased rate for any overtime. Id. at 4. Among other things Plaintiff alleged that she and other teachers were required to attend mandatory meetings for which Defendants failed to lawfully pay them. Id. at 4-5. Given the numerous individuals which Plaintiff alleged were affected by Defendants' practices Plaintiff sought class relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 207 and 216; the Maryland Wage and Hour Law (“MWHL”), Labor & Empl. Art. § 3-415; and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law (“MWPCL”), Labor & Empl. Art., § 3-501, et seq. Id. at 2. Among other forms of relief, Plaintiff asked the Court to certify the case as a class action, enter judgment against the Defendants, award Plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and enjoin Defendants from taking future similar actions in violation of federal and state labor laws. Id. at 9.
As both parties concede, the case was vigorously litigated over the course of the next four years. Perhaps not surprisingly, each side blames the other for this fact. See ECF No. 154-1, at 1 (); ECF No. 165, at 1 (). On September 28, 2017, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 13, arguing that Kim T. Mitchell, LLC, be dismissed from the case because the corporation was not Plaintiff's employer and because Plaintiff's complaint was “entirely devoid of factual support.” Id. at 1-2. In response, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, including more specific allegations regarding the amount that she was paid and the dates of some of the meetings for which she was not paid properly. ECF No. 18, at 4-7. On the same day, Plaintiff also filed an Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Partial Dismissal, arguing that it should be denied in its entirety. ECF No. 19, at 7. Although Kim T. Mitchell, LLC, was dismissed from the case, Defendants' Motion was denied as Moot, given the filing of the Amended Complaint. ECF No. 20.
On December 1, 2017, the case was referred to the Honorable Timothy J. Sullivan of this Court for mediation. ECF No. 27. While the parties were preparing for mediation, they also conducted discovery, including the litigation of disputed requests: 1) to Defendants' bank regarding Defendants' bank statements, ECF Nos. 29, 36, 40, and 48; 2) to Defendants regarding payment records for all teachers Defendants employed, ECF Nos. 31, 39, 42 and 46; and 3) to Defendants' former payroll company requesting Defendants' payroll records and tax forms. ECF No. 49. While these motions were pending and before the settlement conference could be conducted, Plaintiff sought leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 35, and filed a Motion for Class Certification. ECF No. 43. The Second Amended Complaint included allegations regarding the lack of payment to Infant and Toddler Teachers, Assistants to Preschool Teachers, and Infant Toddler Teacher Assistants, but deleted all allegations against Kim T. Mitchell, LLC. ECF No. 35-3 at 3-4.
On March 7, 2018, the Honorable Gina L. Simms held a hearing in the case, after which the Court denied, as moot, the Motion to Quash regarding Defendants' bank statements, given Plaintiff's narrowing of her requests; and allowed Plaintiff to collect some discovery from the Defendants. ECF No. 55. Specifically, the Court allowed Plaintiff to conduct discovery regarding several categories of information related to Preschool Teachers. Id. at 1. However, the Court denied discovery regarding Infant Toddler Teachers and Infant Toddler Teacher Assistants. Id. Although the Court deferred ruling on discovery related to Assistants to Preschool Teachers, id. at 1, it subsequently denied discovery as to this category, as well. ECF No. 60.
On March 8, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint. ECF No. 56. On March 9, 2018, the Court denied Plaintiff's Motion to File a Second Amended Complaint, finding that all amended allegations related to Infant Toddler Teachers, Assistants to Preschool Teachers, and Infant Toddler Teacher Assistants were futile, because they would prejudice Defendants and were beyond the scope of the original complaint. ECF No. 59, at 4. Plaintiff subsequently withdrew her Motion for Leave to file a Third Amended Complaint, as well. ECF No. 62. Plaintiff also filed a second Motion for Leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, adding allegations regarding the lack of payment for attendance at Mother's Day recitals, ECF No. 79, which the Court also denied. ECF No. 88. Plaintiff also raised objection to the Court's prior discovery rulings, ECF Nos. 55 and 60, which the Court overruled. ECF No. 76.
On May 31, 2018, Defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds that “Defendants' preschool teachers are exempt employees, as their primary duty is to impart knowledge and Rainbow Childhood Development Center is recognized by the Maryland Department of Education as an educational establishment.” ECF No. 84, at 2. In response, Plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment on the same issue. ECF No. 90.
On July 26, 2018, the Court held Oral Argument on all pending motions. At the conclusion of the Argument, the Court: 1) granted Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment regarding Plaintiff's claims under the FLSA and Plaintiff's claims under Maryland state law that she was not paid sufficient amounts for overtime work; 2) denied Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's claim under state law that she was not paid at all for certain mandatory meetings; and 3) denied, as moot, Plaintiff's class claims under the FLSA. ECF No. 95. As the Court later noted: “These rulings leave one sole issue for adjudication: Plaintiff's MWPCL claims for unpaid regular hours at straight time rates.” ECF No. 109. Plaintiff later asked to certify these rulings as final judgments so that she could appeal these rulings. ECF No. 102. Although the Court acknowledged that the Court's rulings on the FLSA and overtime claims were “ultimate dispositions”, “the relationship of the claims as well as judicial economy strongly favor[ed] delaying appeal until the appellate court can address all of Plaintiff's claims at once.” ECF No. 109, at 2. On November 7, 2018, the parties met for mediation, but were unable to resolve the case. ECF No. 100.
On August 2, 2019, Defendants filed a second Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing, this time, that Plaintiff could not recover under the MWPCL if she was a salaried employee who could not recover under the FLSA and MWHL. ECF No. 112-1, at 5. Alternatively, Defendants argued that there was no evidence that Plaintiff ever attended a mandatory meeting for which she was not paid. Id. On March 2, 2020, the Court denied the Motion, reasoning that Defendants misunderstood the Court's prior rulings and their lack of applicability to a teacher's claim that she was not paid for attending meetings. ECF No. 122, at 4-5. The Court held that Id. at 5.
Over the course of the next year, the parties began preparations for trial, including the submission of exhibit lists and separate pre-trial memoranda. ECF Nos. 133-135, 137. On May 19, 2021, the parties met once last time in an attempt to achieve a mediated resolution to the case. ECF No. 140. The mediation again proved unsuccessful.
Beginning on June 7, 2021, the Court held a three-day bench trial on Plaintiff's claim under the MPWCL that she was not paid for attending mandatory meetings. ECF No. 142-44. At the conclusion of trial, the Court entered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff in the amount of $2,389.50, together with reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. § 3-507.2(b). ECF No. 145. Counsel for the Plaintiff was directed to file any motion for attorneys' fees and costs in accordance with the Court's Local Rule 109. U.S. District Court, District of Maryland. Md. L.R. 109 (D. Md. 2018). Id....
To continue reading
Request your trial