Schneider et al v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.

Filing 164

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 159 MOTION TO MODIFY CLASS DEFINITIONS.(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/12/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MARTIN SCHNEIDER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
v.

9
10

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

13
14
15
16
17
18

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION TO
MODIFY CLASS DEFINITIONS
Re: Dkt. No. 159

Defendant.

11
12

Case No. 16-cv-02200-HSG

I.

BACKGROUND
On September 29, 2018, the Court certified the following classes:
California: All persons in California who purchased Chipotle’s Food
Products containing meat and/or dairy ingredients during the Class
Period.
Maryland: All persons in Maryland who purchased Chipotle’s Food
Products containing meat and/or dairy ingredients during the Class
Period.

19

New York: All persons in New York who purchased Chipotle’s Food
Products containing meat and/or dairy ingredients during the Class
Period.

20

Dkt. No. 136 at 30. On January 9, 2019, Plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to approve their

21

class notice plan. Dkt. No. 150. The proposed notices attached to Plaintiffs’ administrative

22

motion included the following under the heading “What Is This Case About?”:

23
24

The lawsuit claims that Chipotle’s ‘non-GMO’ advertising located in
its restaurants is misleading and deceptive.

25

Dkt. No. 150-1, Ex. 2. Defendant opposed the administrative motion, asserting that “it would be

26

inaccurate for the Court to notify members of the certified classes that ‘the class claims, issues, or

27

defenses’ in this case (Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(c)(2)(B)(iii)) are limited to the ‘non-GMO’

28

advertising located in Chipotle’s restaurants.” Dkt. No. 151 at 2 (emphasis added). Defendant

1

additionally objected on the basis that the notice plan excluded from the certified classes:

2

(1) any Judge or Magistrate presiding over this action and members
of their families; (2) Chipotle, Chipotle’s subsidiaries, parents,
successors, predecessors, and any entity in which Chipotle has a
controlling interest, and its current or former employees, officers, and
directors; (3) counsel for Plaintiffs and Chipotle; and (4) legal
representatives, successors, or assigns of any such excluded persons.

3
4
5
6

Id. The Court held a hearing on January 24, 2019 to discuss Defendant’s objections to the

7

proposed notice plan, and set a briefing schedule regarding the currently-pending motion to

8

modify class definitions. Dkt. No. 160.

9

II.

DISCUSSION
“Even after a certification order is entered, the judge remains free to modify it in the light

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

of subsequent developments in the litigation.” Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 160

12

(1982). “[D]istrict courts have broad discretion to modify class definitions.” Nevarez v. Forty

13

Niners Football Co., LLC, 326 F.R.D. 562, 575 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (quoting Powers v. Hamilton

14

County Public Defender Com'n, 501 F.3d 592, 619 (6th Cir. 2007), and collecting cases).
Plaintiffs request that the Court modify the class definitions and certify the following

15
16

classes:
California: All persons in California who purchased Chipotle’s Food
Products containing meat and/or dairy ingredients in its restaurants
during the Class Period.

17
18

Maryland: All persons in Maryland who purchased Chipotle’s Food
Products containing meat and/or dairy ingredients in its restaurants
during the Class Period.

19
20

New York: All persons in New York who purchased Chipotle’s Food
Products containing meat and/or dairy ingredients in its restaurants
during the Class Period.

21
22
23

Dkt. No. 159 at 6.1

24
25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiffs additionally request the following language be added to the class definitions:
“Excluded from the California, Maryland, and New York Classes are: (1) any Judge or Magistrate
presiding over this action and members of their families; (2) Chipotle, Chipotle’s subsidiaries,
parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which Chipotle has a controlling interest, and
its current or former employees, officers, and directors; (3) counsel for Plaintiffs and Chipotle; and
(4) legal representatives successors, or assigns of any such persons.” Dkt. No. 159 at 6. This
language tracks the class notice exclusions to which Defendant originally objected. See Dkt. No.
151 at 2. At the January 24 hearing, the Court directed Defendant to file a letter brief on or before
2

Defendant contends that the proposed modifications would “render the modified

1
2

definitions both over- and under- inclusive” by including individuals who were not misled by the

3

“non-GMO” signage, and by failing to include class members who have been exposed to alleged

4

misrepresentations outside Chipotle restaurants. Dkt. No. 163 at 5–6.
In its order granting class certification, the Court noted that “Plaintiffs currently identify

5
6

representations on three in-store signs displayed during the class period, which state, respectively,

7

(1) ‘[w]hen it comes to our food, genetically modified ingredients don’t make the cut,’ Dkt. No.

8

92-34; (2) ‘all of our food is non-GMO,’ Dkt. No. 92-21, and; (3) ‘only non-GMO ingredients,’

9

Dkt. No. 92-35.” Dkt. No. 136 at 2. The Court also noted that “[n]either party has offered any
evidence or argument that members of the proposed classes could have purchased Chipotle meat

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

and/or dairy products without setting foot inside the restaurants, and therefore without having been

12

exposed to any of this signage.” Id. at 24–25.
The Court is not persuaded by Defendant’s contention that the proposed modifications

13
14

meaningfully alter the scope of the previously certified classes. Based on the parties’ submissions

15

to the Court thus far, any individual who purchased Chipotle’s products during the class period

16

necessarily did so in a Chipotle restaurant, and was therefore exposed to at least one of the three

17

in-store signs Plaintiffs allege to be misleading. Neither party has proffered a scenario in which a

18

class member who did not set foot in a Chipotle restaurant would have both: (1) been exposed to

19

any of the statements at issue, and (2) subsequently purchased a Chipotle product during the class

20

period.

21

As for Defendant’s argument that the proposed modification improperly includes

22

individuals who were exposed to the alleged misrepresentations but were not misled because they

23

were “aware of the alleged deception,” the Court finds that the proposed modification does not

24
25
26
27
28

January 31 alleging improper modification of the class based on the exclusions described in the
proposed notice plan. Dkt. No. 160. Defendant filed no such brief and makes no argument
concerning this language in its opposition to the currently-pending motion. The Court deems any
opposition to the listing of these exclusions in Plaintiffs’ proposed notice to be waived. See Nev.
Dep't of Corr. v. Greene, 648 F.3d 1014, 1020 (9th Cir. 2011). The Court also finds the
exclusions unnecessary in the class definition, and because Defendant has provided no authority
requiring their explicit inclusion, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request to include this language in
the modified class definition.
3

1

include any potential class members that were not included in the classes previously certified. The

2

Court has already addressed Defendant’s argument regarding disclaimers in its September 29,

3

2018 order and will not do so again here. See Dkt. No. 136 at 10–11.

4

III.

5

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiffs’ motion to modify the

6

class definitions. The Court hereby modifies the classes previously certified, and certifies the

7

following classes:

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

California: All persons in California who purchased Chipotle’s Food
Products containing meat and/or dairy ingredients in its restaurants
during the Class Period.
Maryland: All persons in Maryland who purchased Chipotle’s Food
Products containing meat and/or dairy ingredients in its restaurants
during the Class Period.
New York: All persons in New York who purchased Chipotle’s Food
Products containing meat and/or dairy ingredients in its restaurants
during the Class Period.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 2/12/2019
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4