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
In Daniela Flores v. Mission Ceviche, Judge Parker held Rule 68 offers and proposed judgments in abeyance while parties address class-notice and settlement requirements.
The parties, the certified class, and the opt-in plaintiffs who accepted the offers of judgment; the order specifically concerns notice and protection of absent class members.
What happened
In Daniela Flores v. Mission Ceviche, the lead plaintiff and five opt-in plaintiffs accepted the defendants’ November 4, 2025 offers of judgment. The filings were made under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68, and proposed judgments stated that notices had not yet been sent to the certified class.
The court noted that the lead plaintiff and her lawyers have duties to protect the class. It also noted that the proposed offers and judgments did not explain how absent class members would be compensated or how the parties would handle the class claims. The court directed the parties to address whether the offers complied with the rules governing class settlements and offers of judgment.
Judge Parker ordered the parties to file a letter by November 19, 2025, and scheduled a December 15, 2025 conference. The court held the offers of judgment and proposed judgments in abeyance while it considers these issues.
The detailed version
- Flores v. Ceviche · No. 1:24-cv-03626
- Katharine Parker
- Nov. 12, 2025
Background
The court received two purported notices accepting offers of judgment and two proposed judgments. The first notice was filed by Daniela Flores, the lead plaintiff and representative of the certified class. The second was filed by opt-in plaintiffs Jerry Castanon, Gustavo Ramirez Garcia, Mauro Palaguachi, Johnny Rivas, and Carlos Torres. Both notices stated that the plaintiffs accepted defendants’ November 4, 2025 offers of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68, which provides a procedure for making and accepting an offer to have judgment entered.
The proposed judgments stated that notices had not been distributed to the class, even though the court had required distribution by November 14, 2025. The opinion does not state the terms of compensation for the absent class members.
Court’s reasoning
After a class is certified, the lead plaintiff and counsel have fiduciary obligations—duties to protect the interests of the class. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(1) requires notice to the class in connection with a settlement of class claims. The court found that the offers and proposed judgments did not provide compensation for absent class members and that the parties had not explained how they intended to proceed with the class claims.
The court also stated that the parties had not explained why the proposed judgments should be approved, whether notice to the class was appropriate, or how the Rule 68 procedures were consistent with Rule 23(e). The court directed the parties to address decisions suggesting that Rule 68 cannot be used to settle Rule 23 class claims without first decertifying the class or expressly leaving the class claims unresolved.
Order
The court ordered the parties to file a letter addressing their obligations under Rule 23(e), the proposed Rule 68 judgments, and their intended treatment of the class claims. The letter is due November 19, 2025. The court also scheduled a conference for December 15, 2025, at 12:30 p.m.
The court held the offers of judgment and proposed judgments in abeyance pending resolution of these issues. It did not approve or reject the proposed judgments in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.