Wood v. Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs brought a collective and proposed class action against Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc. They alleged that the Campaign failed to pay overtime required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The plaintiffs said they worked as Field Organizers, regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, and did not receive overtime pay. Three California plaintiffs also asserted claims under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), which allows an aggrieved employee to pursue certain Labor Code penalties on behalf of California and other affected employees.

The Campaign had previously obtained dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims for fraudulent inducement and promissory estoppel. The remaining claims included the FLSA overtime claim and the PAGA claims. In this motion, the Campaign sought dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the PAGA claims were untimely and that the FLSA allegations did not adequately state a claim. It also sought to strike allegations that allegedly related only to the previously dismissed common-law claims.

PAGA claims

The court held that all three California plaintiffs plausibly alleged timely PAGA claims. PAGA generally requires an employee to give written notice to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency and the employer before filing suit. The court explained that the ordinary limitations period, including the statutory tolling period associated with notice, was functionally 430 days.

The court concluded that California Emergency Rule 9 paused the relevant deadlines for 178 days during the COVID-19 pandemic. It also concluded that the parties’ May 18, 2021 tolling agreement applied to the California plaintiffs’ claims. The agreement covered potential PAGA members who were aggrieved employees and did not exclude the plaintiff who had already provided notice to the agency. The court further concluded that Emergency Rule 9 applied to the deadlines for providing PAGA notice, not only to the deadline for filing a lawsuit.

The court therefore determined that Donna Wood and the other California plaintiffs had timely claims for purposes of the motion to dismiss and denied the Campaign’s request to dismiss the PAGA claims.

FLSA claim

The FLSA generally requires covered employers to pay at least one and one-half times an employee’s regular rate for work beyond 40 hours in a workweek, subject to exceptions not raised in the opinion. The Campaign repeated its earlier arguments that it was not a covered enterprise and that the plaintiffs had not alleged individual coverage.

The court applied the law-of-the-case doctrine, meaning its earlier ruling generally governed the same issue later in the litigation. In the earlier motion, the court had found that the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged individual FLSA coverage and had declined to decide whether the Campaign was a covered enterprise. The Campaign did not identify a change in controlling law, new evidence, or another sufficient reason to reconsider that ruling. The court therefore denied the Campaign’s request to dismiss the FLSA overtime claim.

Request to strike allegations

The Campaign also sought relief under Rule 12(f), which allows a court to remove redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous material from a pleading. The court held that the Campaign had not specifically identified the portions of the Third Amended Complaint it wanted removed. It denied the motion to strike without prejudice to renewal based on papers that identify the specific allegations.

Disposition

The court denied the Campaign’s motion to dismiss and denied the motion to strike without prejudice to renewal with greater specificity. The case remained referred to Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein for general pretrial management.