Wood v. Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc.

Background

Plaintiffs, former employees of Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc., brought claims concerning alleged employment-law violations. The case includes a collective claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin-law claims brought by a proposed Wisconsin class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Alan Robinson was identified as the Wisconsin plaintiff and proposed representative for field organizers in Wisconsin. Tristan Angulo had separately joined the case as an opt-in plaintiff under the Fair Labor Standards Act. After Robinson’s deposition, which plaintiffs acknowledged was difficult and involved profanity, Robinson and plaintiffs’ counsel decided that it would be in the class’s best interests for Robinson to withdraw as representative. Plaintiffs then sought to substitute Angulo.

Scheduling-order issue

The Campaign argued that a May 31, 2022 deadline in the scheduling order applied to the proposed substitution. If so, plaintiffs would have needed to satisfy the stricter “good cause” standard under Rule 16(b). Plaintiffs argued that a different provision controlled: the order stated that the court would not set a deadline for joining parties and would instead apply Rule 15’s requirements.

The court concluded that the May 31 deadline did not apply to this motion. It found that the reference to substituting “certain” class representatives did not necessarily include all class representatives, and noted that plaintiffs had used that deadline to seek substitution of California and Michigan representatives. The court therefore treated the provision concerning joinder as controlling and reviewed the motion under the more flexible standards associated with Rules 15 and 21.

Court’s analysis

Rule 15 generally directs courts to freely allow amendments when justice requires. In deciding whether to allow an amendment, courts commonly consider undue delay, bad faith, whether the amendment would be futile, and unfair prejudice to the opposing party. Rule 21 concerns adding or removing parties but generally uses the same liberal standard in this context.

The court found that the Campaign had not shown bad faith or that the proposed substitution would be futile. It agreed that plaintiffs had not explained the nearly three-month delay after Robinson’s deposition, making the delay somewhat undue. But the court stated that delay alone was not enough to deny the motion when there was no bad faith or prejudice.

The Campaign anticipated that substituting Angulo would require additional document searches, Angulo’s deposition, preparation of a defense concerning him, and possible discovery disputes. The court determined that the need for additional discovery, by itself, did not establish undue prejudice. It also noted that the motion was filed nearly two months before the then-existing discovery deadline, that the Campaign had already been conducting discovery concerning the Wisconsin class, and that class-certification briefing had not yet occurred. The court further stated that discovery concerning Angulo could be limited if reasonably necessary.

The court gave significant weight to plaintiffs’ uncontested assertion that, without a replacement for Robinson, the entire proposed Wisconsin class would be unable to litigate its claims against the Campaign. Balancing the relevant factors, the court concluded that they strongly favored allowing the substitution.

Disposition

The court granted plaintiffs’ motion to substitute Tristan Angulo as the proposed Wisconsin class representative. The order concerned the proposed representative change and did not resolve the merits of the employment-law claims.