TURNER v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC.

9/13/2016
TURNER v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC. by JOHN L. KANE, Senior District Judge | Leagle.com
LAWYER LOGIN
TURNER v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC.
Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-02612-JLK.
Email | Print | Comments (0)
LEAH TURNER, ARACELI GUTIERREZ, MARKEITTA FORD, JOLESSA WADE, DANYA GRANADO, BRETT CHARLES, and RUBY TSAO, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, Plainti삅삀s, v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., Defendant.
United States District Court, D. Colorado.
December 18, 2015.
View Case
Cited Cases
Citing Case
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Leah Turner, Plainti삅삀, represented by Adam Seth Levy, Law O䃑댲ce of Adam S. Levy, LLC, Andrew Curry Quisenberry, Bachus & Schanker, LLC,
Darin Lee Schanker, Bachus & Schanker, LLC, Kent Morgan Williams, Williams Law Firm & Kevin Edward Giebel, Giebel and Associates, LLC.
Araceli Gutierrez, Plainti삅삀, represented by Andrew Curry Quisenberry, Bachus & Schanker, LLC, Darin Lee Schanker, Bachus & Schanker, LLC &
Kevin Edward Giebel, Giebel and Associates, LLC.
Markeitta Ford, Plainti삅삀, represented by Andrew Curry Quisenberry, Bachus & Schanker, LLC, Darin Lee Schanker, Bachus & Schanker, LLC &
Kevin Edward Giebel, Giebel and Associates, LLC.
Jolessa Wade, Plainti삅삀, represented by Andrew Curry Quisenberry, Bachus & Schanker, LLC, Darin Lee Schanker, Bachus & Schanker, LLC & Kevin
Edward Giebel, Giebel and Associates, LLC.
Danya Granado, Plainti삅삀, represented by Andrew Curry Quisenberry, Bachus & Schanker, LLC, Darin Lee Schanker, Bachus & Schanker, LLC &
Kevin Edward Giebel, Giebel and Associates, LLC.
Brett Charles, Plainti삅삀, represented by Andrew Curry Quisenberry, Bachus & Schanker, LLC, Darin Lee Schanker, Bachus & Schanker, LLC & Kevin
Edward Giebel, Giebel and Associates, LLC.
Ruby Tsao, Plainti삅삀, represented by Andrew Curry Quisenberry, Bachus & Schanker, LLC, Darin Lee Schanker, Bachus & Schanker, LLC & Kevin
Edward Giebel, Giebel and Associates, LLC.
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., Defendant, represented by Adam Michael Royval, Messner & Reeves LLP, Allison Joy Dodd, Messner & Reeves LLP,
John Karl Shunk, Messner & Reeves LLP, Louis Matthew Grossman, Messner & Reeves LLP & Richard J. Simmons, Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton, LLP.
O R D E R R E G A R D I N G N OT I C E O F C O L L E C T I V E AC T I O N
JOHN L. KANE, Senior District Judge.
Considering the foregoing Joint Report Regarding Proposed Notice, and the arguments of counsel made therein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, AS FOLLOWS:
A . Pe r s o n s t o w h o m t h e N o t i c e i s d i re c t e d.
In the "TO" line of page 1, Plainti삅삀s propose the following language:
file:///C:/Users/User/Desktop/TURNER%20v.%20CHIPOTLE%20MEXICAN%20GRILL,%20INC.%20by%20JOHN%20L.%20KANE,%20Senior%20District%…
1/5
9/13/2016
TURNER v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC. by JOHN L. KANE, Senior District Judge | Leagle.com
In the "TO" line of page 1, Plainti삅삀s propose the following language:
All current and former employees of Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc, who worked as an hourly-paid crew member, and worked o삅삀
the clock at any time on or after February 2, 2012, resulting in the nonpayment of regular or overtime wages.
Chipotle objects to this language and has proposed two changes to this description. First, Chipotle seeks to add the word "allegedly"
before the word "worked." Second, Chipotle contends that the starting date for the collective should be August 21, 2015. Chipotle has
proposed these same changes to the description of the collective in Section 3, Current Status of the Lawsuit & Description of the
Collective. Plainti삅삀s object to these revisions in favor of their proposed language.
(1) As to the use of the word allegedly in the TO line of page 1 of the Joint Submission and in the description of the collective in
Section 3, Chipotle's objection is sustained/OVERRULED and its proposal is granted/DENIED.
(2) As to the starting date for the collective, Chipotle's objection is sustained/OVERRULED and its proposal is granted/DENIED.
B . R e fe re n c e t o s t a t e l a w c l a i m s.
In the RE: line on page 1 of the Notice, Plainti삅삀s propose the following language:
Lawsuit Filed Against Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Chipotle objects to this language and proposes the following amendment to this language:
Lawsuit Filed Against Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as the State Laws of Colorado,
Arizona, New Jersey and California.
Chipotle also proposes to add "and the state laws identi䂹晦ed above" to the 䂹晦rst sentence of Section 1, Introduction. Chipotle further
proposes to add "The lawsuit also includes claims arising under the laws of California, Arizona, New Jersey and Colorado" to the last
sentence of the second paragraph of Section 2, Description of Claims. Plainti삅삀s object to these revisions in favor of their proposed
language.
Chipotle's objection is sustained/OVERRULED and its proposed amendments to the Notice are granted/DENIED.
C . D e s c r i p t i o n o f P l a i n t i s ' F L S A c l a i m s.
In Section 2, Description of the Lawsuit, Plainti삅삀s propose the following language to describe their FSLA claims:
The lawsuit alleges that Chipotle violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), by failing to pay its crew members for
work performed `o삅삀 the clock,' resulting in unpaid minimum or regular wages (for 40 or fewer hours per week) and/or unpaid
overtime wages (for over 40 hours per week). The lawsuit claims that under the FLSA, crew members are entitled to double
their unpaid wages, plus other compensation.
Chipotle objects to this language and proposes the following revisions to this language:
The lawsuit alleges that Chipotle violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), by failing to pay its crew members for
work performed `o삅삀 the clock,' resulting in unpaid minimum or regular wages (for 40 or fewer hours per week) and/or unpaid
overtime wages (for over 40 hours per week). The lawsuit claims that, under the FLSA if Plainti삅삀s establish that a violation of
the FLSA occurred, and that it did not occur in good faith, crew members are entitled to double their unpaid wages, plus other
compensation.
Plainti삅삀s object to these revisions in favor of their proposed language.
Chipotle's objection is sustained/OVERRULED and its proposed amendment to the Notice is granted/DENIED.
D. D e s c r i p t i o n o f C h i p o t l e ' s d e fe n s e s.
In Section 2, Description of the Lawsuit, Plainti삅삀s propose the following language to describe Chipotle's defenses:
Chipotle denies the Plainti삅삀s' allegations and states that it has complied with the FLSA and that it has paid its workers for all
time worked. Chipotle maintains that it has always acted in good faith to comply with this policy. Chipotle further maintains it
owes nothing and is not liable to any individual because Chipotle has paid all wages that it owes.
Chipotle objects to this language and proposes the following clari䂹晦cations and revisions to this description:
Chipotle denies the Plainti삅삀s' allegations and states that it has complied with the FLSA and all state laws and that it has paid its
workers for all time worked. It is Chipotle's express policy to pay all employees for all time worked and Chipotle maintains that
it has always acted in good faith to comply with this policy. Chipotle further maintains it owes nothing and is not liable to any
file:///C:/Users/User/Desktop/TURNER%20v.%20CHIPOTLE%20MEXICAN%20GRILL,%20INC.%20by%20JOHN%20L.%20KANE,%20Senior%20District%…
2/5
9/13/2016
TURNER v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC. by JOHN L. KANE, Senior District Judge | Leagle.com
it has always acted in good faith to comply with this policy. Chipotle further maintains it owes nothing and is not liable to any
individual because Chipotle has paid all wages that it owes. If Chipotle prevails in this matter, it will seek to recover its costs of
litigation.
Plainti삅삀s object to these revisions in favor of their proposed language.
Chipotle's objection is sustained/OVERRULED and its proposed amendment to the Notice is granted/DENIED.
E . S t a t e m e n t t h a t t h e C o u r t h a s ex p re s s e d n o v i e w o f t h e m e r i t s.
In Section 3, Current Status of the Lawsuit & Description of the Collective, Plainti삅삀s propose the following language:
The Court has not expressed any opinion regarding the merits of the Plainti삅삀s' claims, and there is no assurance that the Court
will grant any relief requested.
Chipotle objects and proposes supplementing or amending this language as follows:
The Court has not expressed any opinion regarding the merits of the Plainti삅삀s' claims, and there is no assurance that the Court
will award any damages or grant any relief requested.
Plainti삅삀s object to these revisions in favor of their proposed language.
Chipotle's objection is SUSTAINED/overruled and its proposed amendment to the Notice GRANTED/denied.
E . S t a t e m e n t re ga rd i n g e a c h p e r s o n ' s r i g h t t o p a r t i c i p a t e.
In the 䂹晦rst paragraph of Section 4, Your Right to Participate in this Suit, and Your Obligations if You Choose to Participate, Plainti삅삀s
propose the following language:
If you 䂹晦t the description in Section 3 above, you have the right to join the suit and bring your own claim against Chipotle. If
your claim is successful, you will be entitled to share in any money that is awarded. It is entirely your own decision whether or
not to join this lawsuit and make a claim.
Chipotle objects, in part, to this language, and proposes the following revision:
If you 䂹晦t the description in Section 3 above, you may have the right to join the suit and bring your own claim against Chipotle. It
is entirely your own decision whether or not to join this lawsuit and make a claim.
Plainti삅삀s object to these revisions in favor of their proposed language.
Chipotle's objection is sustained/OVERRULED and its proposed revision is granted/DENIED.
F. S t a t e m e n t re ga rd i n g e a c h p e r s o n ' s o b l i ga t i o n s i f t h ey p a r t i c i p a t e.
In the second paragraph of Section 4, Your Right to Participate in this Suit, and Your Obligations if You Choose to Participate,
Plainti삅삀s propose the following language:
If you choose to join the suit, you have certain obligations to participate in the litigation, which may include being asked to
respond to written discovery, to appear for a deposition, and, if necessary, to appear and testify at trial.
Chipotle objects to this language and proposes that this language be revised as follows:
If you choose to join the suit, you will be obligated to participate in the litigation, which may include being asked to respond to
requests for information and written questions, to appear for a deposition, where your testimony will be taken under oath, and,
if necessary, to appear and testify at trial.
Plainti삅삀s object to these revisions in favor of their proposed language.
Chipotle's objection is sustained/OVERRULED and its proposed amendment to the Notice is granted/DENIED.
H . E e c t o f n o t j o i n i n g t h e s u i t.
In Section 6, E삅삀ect of Not Joining This Suit, Plainti삅삀s propose the following language:
file:///C:/Users/User/Desktop/TURNER%20v.%20CHIPOTLE%20MEXICAN%20GRILL,%20INC.%20by%20JOHN%20L.%20KANE,%20Senior%20District%…
3/5
9/13/2016
TURNER v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC. by JOHN L. KANE, Senior District Judge | Leagle.com
If you do not join this lawsuit, you will not be a삅삀ected or bound by any judgment, favorable or unfavorable, on any of the claims
alleged in this lawsuit. This means you will not share in any money if the Plainti삅삀s win, and you will not be bound by any
judgment if the Plainti삅삀s lose. You will retain all legal rights, if any, that you may have, subject to the statute of limitations.
Chipotle objects, in part, to this language, and proposes the following revision:
If you do not join this lawsuit, you will not be a삅삀ected or bound by any judgment, favorable or unfavorable, on any of the claims
alleged in this lawsuit. You will retain all legal rights, if any, that you may have, subject to the statute of limitations.
Plainti삅삀s object to these revisions in favor of their proposed language.
Chipotle's objection is sustained/OVERRULED and its proposed revision to the Notice is granted/DENIED.
I . S t a t e m e n t re ga rd i n g t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s.
In Section 7, Statute of Limitations, Plainti삅삀s propose the following language:
If you decide not to join this lawsuit, you should consult with your own attorney about how the statute of limitations will a삅삀ect
your claim.
Chipotle objects, in part, to this language, and proposes the following revision:
You may consult with your own attorney about how the statute of limitations will a삅삀ect your claim.
Plainti삅삀s object to these revisions in favor of their proposed language.
Chipotle's objection is sustained/OVERRULED.
J . T h e e e c t o f m i s s i n g t h e d e a d l i n e.
In the second paragraph of Section 9, How to Join This Lawsuit, Plainti삅삀s propose the following language:
If you fail to return or submit the Consent to Join by the deadline, you will not be permitted to join in this lawsuit. This means
you will not share in any monetary recovery that is awarded, and you will not be bound by any judgment, whether favorable or
unfavorable. If you have already successfully submitted a Consent to Join, you do not need to submit another one at this time.
Chipotle objects, in part, to this language, and proposes the following revision:
If you fail to return or submit the Consent to Join by the deadline, you will not be permitted to join in this lawsuit. If you have
already successfully submitted a Consent to Join, you do not need to submit another one at this time.
Plainti삅삀s object to these revisions in favor of their proposed language.
Chipotle's objection is sustained/OVERRULED.
K . C o n t i n u i n g re p re s e n t a t i o n by c o u n s e l.
In the third paragraph of Section 9, How to Join This Lawsuit, Plainti삅삀s propose the following language:
Returning or submitting a Consent to Join does not guarantee you will be able to participate in a trial in this lawsuit, as this may
depend on a 䂹晦nal ruling from the Court that you and the named Plainti삅삀s are similarly situated under federal law. You would
still have the right to pursue your own claim, however, and Plainti삅삀's counsel would continue to represent you.
Chipotle objects, in part, to this language, and proposes the following revision:
Returning or submitting a Consent to Join does not guarantee you will be able to participate in a trial in this lawsuit, as this may
depend on a 䂹晦nal ruling from the Court that you and the named Plainti삅삀s are similarly situated under federal law. You would
still have the right to pursue your own claim.
Plainti삅삀s object to these revisions in favor of their proposed language.
Chipotle's objection is sustained/OVERRULED and its proposed revision to the Notice is granted/DENIED.
file:///C:/Users/User/Desktop/TURNER%20v.%20CHIPOTLE%20MEXICAN%20GRILL,%20INC.%20by%20JOHN%20L.%20KANE,%20Senior%20District%…
4/5
9/13/2016
TURNER v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC. by JOHN L. KANE, Senior District Judge | Leagle.com
L . S h o r t fo r m o f n o t i c e.
Plainti삅삀s have proposed a short form of notice, which was attached as Exhibit E to the Joint Report of the parties. Chipotle objects to
Plainti삅삀s' proposal, and proposes its own version of short form of notice, which was attached as Exhibit D to the Joint Report of the
parties. Plainti삅삀s object to Chipotle's revised version of short form notice in favor of their proposed language.
Chipotle's objection is sustained/OVERRULED.
Comment
Your Name
Your Email
Comments
Submit
1000 Characters Remaining
Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.
Featured Lawyers
Gabriel I. Opatken
Noble IP LLC
Chicago
Illinois
Copyright © 2015, Leagle, Inc.
Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Statement | About Us | Contact Us
file:///C:/Users/User/Desktop/TURNER%20v.%20CHIPOTLE%20MEXICAN%20GRILL,%20INC.%20by%20JOHN%20L.%20KANE,%20Senior%20District%…
5/5