Wood v. Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc.

Background

The opinion materials consist of the Bloomberg campaign’s response to the plaintiffs’ request for a pre-motion conference about filing a motion for conditional certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Conditional certification is an early-stage procedure that may allow notice to be sent to workers who could join a collective action. The campaign had not yet responded to the First Amended Complaint; under the parties’ stipulation, its response was due June 1, 2020.

The Bloomberg Campaign’s Position

The campaign asked the court to deny the plaintiffs’ request for permission to file the conditional-certification motion without prejudice and to allow the plaintiffs to refile it if the court denied the campaign’s anticipated motion to dismiss the Fair Labor Standards Act claim. The campaign argued that the request was premature because the sufficiency of the wage claim had not yet been tested under Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint adequately states a claim.

The campaign also argued that the plaintiffs had not shown that the proposed collective-action members were similarly situated. According to the campaign’s letter, field organizers performed different duties in different regions and had different levels of authority. It contended that deciding whether particular organizers were entitled to overtime would require an individual, fact-intensive analysis.

Plaintiffs’ Position

The plaintiffs agreed not to refile their conditional-certification motion until the court ruled on the campaign’s response. They maintained that the motion was appropriate at that stage, that the court’s earlier permission to file it was well considered, and that the proposed briefing schedule should remain in place.

Court’s Action

The court stated that the campaign appeared to seek a stay of the litigation or possibly only a stay of the disposition of the proposed conditional-certification motion. The court waived the pre-motion conference requirement for either motion. It stated that, if a motion were filed, the briefing schedule would follow paragraph 2.B of the court’s individual practices.

The court also noted that the letter had been docketed in a manner that did not comply with paragraph 1.B of those practices and directed counsel to comply in the future. The materials do not show a ruling on the anticipated motion to dismiss, the validity of the Fair Labor Standards Act claim, or conditional certification. The order therefore addressed case-management and filing procedures rather than the merits.