Schneider et al v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.
Filing
215
ORDER DIRECTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING Re Docket No. 205 . Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 1/13/2020. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/13/2020)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
MARTIN SCHNEIDER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
8
9
10
v.
ORDER DIRECTING
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING
Re: Dkt. No. 205
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC.,
Defendant.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No. 16-cv-02200-HSG
12
13
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class
14
action settlement. Dkt. No. 205. The Court directs Plaintiffs to submit supplemental briefing by
15
January 20, 2020 on two issues described below.
16
First, Plaintiffs assert that they are seeking certification of the settlement class under Rule
17
23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(c). Dkt. No. 205 at 8. However, the Settlement Agreement only
18
contemplates certification under Rule 23(b)(3). Dkt. No. 205-2 (“SA”) § III.A. Nor does the
19
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
21
certification.
22
Second, in light of the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Roes, 1-2 v. SFBSC Mgmt., LLC,
23
944 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2019), Plaintiffs are directed to provide more detail regarding the notice
24
plan, specifically the digital media campaign. For example, while the Settlement Administrator
25
states that the “internet banner notice … will be implemented using a 60-day desktop and mobile
26
campaign,” there is no specificity as to where the banner will be placed. See Dkt. No. 205-12 at
27
¶¶ 18–21. Plaintiffs should explain what websites, social media platforms, or relevant online
28
messaging boards will be used to disseminate information about the settlement, and how those
1
platforms will be “‘reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances,’ to apprise all class
2
members of the proposed settlement.” See Roes, 944 F.3d at 1047 (citation omitted). In other
3
words, Plaintiffs should provide sufficient detail about the proposed notice process to allow the
4
Court to analyze whether the plan satisfies the concerns articulated in in Roes. See Roes, 944 F.3d
5
at 1045–48.
6
7
8
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 1/13/2020
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?