Flores v. Ceviche
Daniela Flores, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class v. Mission Ceviche, LLC, Mission Ceviche UES Inc, Mission Ceviche Canal LLC, Mission Ceviche Nomad LLC, Jose Luis Chavez, Brice Mastroluca, Miguel Yarrow
- Katharine Parker
- 1:24-cv-03626
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Flores v. Mission Ceviche: Judge Parker denied the plaintiffs’ partial summary-judgment motion without prejudice while class certification remained undecided.
The ruling affects Daniela Flores, the FLSA collective plaintiffs and proposed class, and the named defendants because the plaintiffs’ partial summary-judgment motion was denied without prejudice; the class-certification motion remains undecided.
What happened
In Flores v. Mission Ceviche, the plaintiffs asked the court to decide some issues through partial summary judgment, even though their request to certify a class had not yet been decided.
The court said it could choose whether to consider summary judgment before deciding class certification. It noted that the proposed order addressed class-wide issues and was filed before discovery was complete. The court had not decided the merits of any pending motion or the ultimate issues in the case.
Judge Katharine H. Parker denied the partial summary-judgment motion without prejudice. After deciding the class-certification motion, the court will set a new schedule for summary-judgment briefing or schedule a trial, as appropriate. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 63.
The detailed version
- Flores v. Ceviche · No. 1:24-cv-03626
- Katharine Parker
- Aug. 29, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs had filed a motion to certify a class on December 11, 2024. That motion remained undecided. On January 17, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a partial motion for summary judgment, which asks the court to decide some issues without a trial. They also submitted a proposed order that would have resolved issues for the class, even though class certification had not been decided and discovery was not complete.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that deciding whether to address summary judgment before class certification is within the court’s discretion. Because the court had not yet decided whether to certify a class, or the extent of any certification, it concluded that it could not resolve the issues presented in the plaintiffs’ motion at that time. The court stated that it had not prejudged the merits of any pending motion or the ultimate issues in the case. It also stated that the class-certification decision could potentially make the partial summary-judgment motion moot, in whole or in part, as filed.
Ruling
Judge Katharine H. Parker denied the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment without prejudice. After deciding the class-certification motion, the court will address a new schedule for summary-judgment briefing and/or schedule a trial, as appropriate. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 63.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.