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

Summary

The court granted Defendants’ unopposed motion to decertify a Rule 23 class in an FLSA and NYLL wage-and-hour action. It held that Plaintiff and the FLSA opt-in plaintiffs, having accepted Rule 68 offers of judgment, were no longer adequate representatives of absent class members, and that notice of the individual settlements was not required because absent class members would not be bound. The court directed the parties to revise and refile the proposed judgments to expressly state that they do not bind absent putative class members.

Holdings

1. The Rule 23 class must be decertified because, after accepting Rule 68 offers of judgment, neither the named plaintiff nor the FLSA opt-in plaintiffs remained adequate representatives capable of vigorously pursuing or protecting the interests of absent class members.
2. Notice to absent class members was not required under Rule 23 because the class had been decertified and the proposed judgments resolved only individual claims without binding absent class members.
3. The individual Rule 68 settlements could be approved, but the proposed judgments had to be revised and refiled to expressly provide that they would not bind absent putative class members.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the previously certified Rule 23 class should be decertified after the named plaintiff and all FLSA opt-in plaintiffs accepted Rule 68 offers of judgment.
2. Whether Rule 23 requires notice to absent class members when the class has been decertified and the proposed judgments resolve only the individual claims of the named and opt-in plaintiffs.
3. Whether the proposed Rule 68 judgments should be approved subject to revision to state expressly that they do not bind absent class members.

Disposition

other