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)

Download PDF
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?