Wood v. Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc.

Background

On March 31, 2025, the court issued an opinion and order that partially granted and partially denied Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc.’s motion for partial summary judgment. Summary judgment is a ruling without a trial when the record shows no genuine dispute about facts important to the claim. Among other things, the earlier order held that material factual disputes prevented summary judgment on whether the plaintiffs were individually covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). It also held that generally applicable laws, including the FLSA, do not trigger First Amendment scrutiny merely because they have an incidental effect on speech in the political-campaign context.

Motions

The Campaign filed two motions. First, it sought reconsideration under Local Rule 6.3 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), asking the court to reverse its ruling on individual FLSA coverage and hold that the plaintiffs were not covered. The Campaign argued that the earlier ruling could not be reconciled with decisions from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Southern District of New York.

Second, the Campaign sought certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) for an interlocutory appeal. An interlocutory appeal is an appeal before a final judgment ends the case. The Campaign asked the court to certify two questions: whether entering data into software that ultimately transmits the data across state lines can establish individual FLSA coverage, and whether the First Amendment prevents federal and state overtime laws from applying to political campaigns.

Reconsideration ruling

The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally limited to an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. The court concluded that the Campaign had not identified any of those circumstances. The earlier opinion had already considered the two decisions on which the Campaign relied, so they were not overlooked or intervening authorities. The court also rejected the Campaign’s attempt to restate its disagreement with the earlier treatment of the factual record as a legal principle that entering data into an electronic system can never establish individual FLSA coverage.

The court therefore denied the Campaign’s motion for reconsideration.

Interlocutory-appeal ruling

Section 1292(b) requires a controlling question of law, a substantial ground for difference of opinion on that question, and a finding that an immediate appeal may materially advance the litigation. The court addressed the two proposed questions separately.

For the FLSA question, the court found that the Campaign’s arguments focused on the factual record rather than a pure legal question that an appellate court could resolve quickly without studying the record. The court also found that the Campaign had not shown a substantial legal disagreement. The different result in the cited Pennsylvania decision resulted from differences in the factual records, not different interpretations of the FLSA. Finally, the Campaign acknowledged that state labor-law claims would remain, and many of those claims were based on the same underlying events. The court concluded that an immediate appeal would not materially advance termination of the litigation and denied the motion as to the first question.

For the First Amendment question, the court determined that the first and third statutory requirements were likely satisfied because the issue was controlling, largely legal, and could potentially dispose of the federal and state overtime claims. But the Campaign failed to show a substantial ground for disagreement. It identified no decision holding that generally applicable laws such as the FLSA trigger First Amendment scrutiny when applied to political campaigns. The court concluded that the Campaign’s continued disagreement with the court’s earlier ruling did not satisfy Section 1292(b) and denied the motion as to the second question.

Disposition

The court denied the Campaign’s motion for reconsideration and its motion for interlocutory appeal in their entirety. The order resolved docket entries 542 and 547.