Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND BRYANT ROBERTS v. * * * * Civil No. JFM-09-1539 * * * *****

COMCAST CORPORATION, ET AL.

MEMORANDUM

Comcast Cable Communications Management LLC has filed a motion for entry of judgment with prejudice. The motion will be granted. Plaintiff initially instituted this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Maryland law against Comcast and plaintiff's direct employer, Vitel Communications LLC. Plaintiffs sought to institute a collective action under the FLSA and a Rule 23 class action as to the Maryland state law claims. Subsequently, plaintiff filed a motion to consolidate this action with a similar action (in which the plaintiff was represented by the same counsel as plaintiff is in this action). Comcast opposed the motion and plaintiff subsequently withdrew it without explanation. In the interim Comcast filed an answer to the complaint and a cross claim against Vitel. Approximately five months after the complaint had been filed, plaintiff filed an amended complaint against Vitel and JNET, described in the amended complaint as "a certified Minority, Woman, Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise" that allegedly "directed, controlled, and managed" Vitel's human resources' policies and payroll practices. Comcast was not named as a 1

defendant in the amended complaint. Comcast contends, and plaintiff does not dispute, that the filing of an amended complaint dropping Comcast as a defendant is to be treated as a motion to dismiss the dropped defendant under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). See AeroTech, Inc. v. Estes, 110 F.3d 1523, 1526 (10th Cir. 1997); Dede-K Enters, Inc. v. Heveafil SDN, BHD, 177 F.R.D. 351, 355-6 (E.D. Va. 1998); 8 Moore's Fed. Practice,

Download Roberts v. Comcast Corp., et al..pdf

Maryland Law