United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 2020

Schneider v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.

Schneider v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.
United States District Court for the Northern District of California · Decided January 13, 2020
Schneider v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.

Trial Court Opinion

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MARTIN SCHNEIDER, et al., Case No. 16-cv-02200-HSG 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DIRECTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 205 10 CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., 11 Defendant.

13 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. Dkt. No. 205. The Court directs Plaintiffs to submit supplemental briefing by January 20, 2020 on two issues described below.

16 First, Plaintiffs assert that they are seeking certification of the settlement class under Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(c). Dkt. No. 205 at 8. However, the Settlement Agreement only contemplates certification under Rule 23(b)(3). Dkt. No. 205-2 (“SA”) § III.A. Nor does the Settlement Agreement provide for injunctive or declaratory relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2).

20 Accordingly, the Court directs Plaintiffs to clarify the basis under which they are seeking certification.

22 Second, in light of the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Roes, 1-2 v. SFBSC Mgmt., LLC, 944 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2019), Plaintiffs are directed to provide more detail regarding the notice plan, specifically the digital media campaign. For example, while the Settlement Administrator states that the “internet banner notice … will be implemented using a 60-day desktop and mobile campaign,” there is no specificity as to where the banner will be placed. See Dkt. No. 205-12 at ¶¶ 18–21. Plaintiffs should explain what websites, social media platforms, or relevant online platforms will be “‘reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances,’ to apprise all class || members of the proposed settlement.” See Roes, 944 F.3d at 1047 (citation omitted). In other words, Plaintiffs should provide sufficient detail about the proposed notice process to allow the || Court to analyze whether the plan satisfies the concerns articulated in in Roes. See Roes, 944 F.3d 5 || at 1045-48.

7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

8 || Dated: 1/13/2020 ° aaa Gs S. GILLIAM, JR. / 10 United States District Judge

= 17 Z 18

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.