Watson v. Dell Technologies Inc. et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No. 19-cv-02667-RM-NYW
MARIE WATSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC., a/k/a DELL EMC, f/k/a
DELL, INC and EMC CORPORATION,
DELL EMC,
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and
ADP, LLC,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the Stipulation Concerning The Proper Dell
Defendants (“Stipulation”) (ECF No. 92). The Stipulation was filed because the Court raised the
issue of proper Dell defendants. The parties to the Stipulation advise: (1) the proper defendant is
EMC Corp.; and (2) defendants Dell Technologies, Inc. and Dell EMC should be dismissed with
prejudice. Based on the Court’s review of the record, it finds such action, without more, to be
problematic.
Specifically, the caption of Plaintiff’s complaint identifies defendants as follows:
DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC., also known as DELL EMC, formerly known as DELL,
INC. and EMC CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation;
DELL EMC, a Delaware corporation,
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a New York corporation; and
AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING, INC. also knowns as ADP, a Delaware
Corporation,
(ECF No. 1.) Thus, Dell Technologies, Inc. and Dell EMC are identified as defendants, with
EMC Corporation as the former name of Dell Technologies, Inc. In fact, attorneys for Dell
Case No. 1:19-cv-02667-RMR-KAS Document 93 filed 01/22/21 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 2

2
signed a waiver of service on behalf of Dell Technologies, Inc. and Dell EMC. (ECF No. 32.)
Thus, it appears that dismissal of these two defendants may leave no Dell defendant in this
action.
Nonetheless, the parties jointly seek to have the correct Dell defendant named in this
action and the improper ones dismissed. Thus, the Court will construe the Stipulation as also a
request for amendment to reflect that EMC Corp. is the proper Dell defendant. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 15; Dietz v. Bouldin, 136 S. Ct. 1885, 1888-89, 195 L. Ed. 2d 161 (2016) (noting a district
court’s “inherent power” to “manage its docket and courtroom with a view toward the efficient
and expedient resolution of cases”). As no formal entry of appearance has been entered in this
case for defendant EMC Corp.,1 counsel shall do so. Accordingly, it is ORDERED
(1) That the Stipulation (ECF No. 92), construed as a motion, is GRANTED;
(2) That the complaint is hereby deemed amended to reflect that EMC Corp. is a
defendant in this action and the Clerk shall note this in the court record;
(3) That defendants Dell Technologies, Inc. and Dell EMC are hereby dismissed with
prejudice, with each party to pay its or her own attorneys’ fees and costs;
(4) That the caption in all future filings shall include “EMC Corp.”; and
(5) That counsel for EMC Corp. shall file a formal entry of appearance in this matter by
Tuesday, January 26, 2021.
DATED this 22nd day of January, 2021.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________________
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge
1 The Court recognizes counsel entered his appearance for EMC Corp. before it was specifically added. See ECF No.
44, p. 25; No. 92, p. 2.
Case No. 1:19-cv-02667-RMR-KAS Document 93 filed 01/22/21 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 2