Flores v. Mission Ceviche, LLC
- Katharine Parker
- 1:24-cv-03626
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Flores v. Mission Ceviche, LLC, Judge Subramanian conditionally approved an FLSA employee collective and related notice procedures.
Daniela Flores, potential opt-in employees who fit the court-approved covered-employee definition, Flores’s counsel, and the defendant entities and individual defendants responsible for producing information and posting notice.
What happened
Daniela Flores asked the court to conditionally certify a group of non-exempt employees who worked for the defendants at any location on or after October 19, 2017, under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The defendants did not oppose the request.
The court found that Flores made the required modest factual showing that the employees and potential participants were affected by a common policy or plan that violated the law. It granted conditional collective certification, approved the proposed notice and consent form, and allowed notice to be sent by mail, email, or text message.
Judge Arun Subramanian granted in part Flores’s request for employee information: the defendants had to provide the requested information except Social Security numbers by December 9, 2024. The court denied the Social Security-number request without prejudice, required notice posting at the defendants’ workplaces by December 3, 2024, and paused the Fair Labor Standards Act limitation period from October 19, 2023, through the end of the opt-in period.
The detailed version
- Flores v. Mission Ceviche, LLC · No. 1:24-cv-03626
- Katharine Parker
- Nov. 26, 2024
Background
Daniela Flores moved under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for conditional certification of an employee collective. The proposed collective consisted of all non-exempt employees employed by the defendants at any location on or after October 19, 2017. Flores also requested approval of proposed notice and consent documents, distribution of those documents, production of information about potential collective members, workplace posting, and tolling of the FLSA limitations period. The defendants did not file an opposition.
Court’s Analysis
For conditional certification, the court required a “modest factual showing” that Flores and potential opt-in plaintiffs were victims of a common policy or plan that violated the law. The court stated that Flores clearly met this low standard of proof.
Rulings
The court granted the motion for conditional collective certification. It approved the proposed consent form and notice and allowed them to be distributed to covered employees by mail, email, or text message. Opt-in plaintiffs could send their consent forms directly to Flores’s counsel.
The court granted in part Flores’s request for defendants to produce, in Excel format, information about covered employees. Defendants were required to produce the names, titles, compensation rates, employment dates, last known mailing addresses, email addresses, and known telephone numbers by December 9, 2024. The court denied the request for Social Security numbers without prejudice because Flores had not shown with specificity that the sensitive information was necessary at that stage.
The court required Flores’s counsel to post the notice and consent form at the defendants’ places of business where covered employees worked by December 3, 2024. It also tolled, or paused, the FLSA limitations period from October 19, 2023, through the end of the opt-in period. The clerk was directed to terminate the motions at Docket 39 and Docket 47.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.