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