Gilyard v. Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM RULING re 15 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Pursuant to FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) filed by Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. Signed by Chief Judge S Maurice Hicks, Jr on 6/14/2018. (crt,McDonnell, D)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION

TAMERICK GILYARD

CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-0441

VERSUS

JUDGE S. MAURICE HICKS, JR.

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL INC

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY

MEMORANDUM RULING
Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss (Record Document 15) filed by Defendant
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (“Chipotle”). Chipotle seeks dismissal of Plaintiff Tamerick
Gilyard’s (“Gilyard”) complaint for compensatory damages. Gilyard has opposed the
Motion to Dismiss. See Record Document 19. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion
to Dismiss (Record Document 15) is GRANTED and all of Gilyard’s claims against
Chipotle are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
BACKGROUND
Gilyard regularly consumed Chipotle’s food in late January and early February of
2016. See Record Document 15 at 2. After showing symptoms of nausea and stomach
pain, he saw a physician for an evaluation. See id. at 3. On February 22, 2016, Gilyard
tested positive for Helicobacter Pylori (“H. Pylori”). See id. Gilyard alleges that Chipotle is
solely at fault for infecting him with the H. Pylori bacteria. See id. at 4. He further alleges
that Chipotle was negligent by:
A. Failing to exercise reasonable care in storing, making, and/or
distributing the food;
B. Failing to maintain a safe environment by making and/or serving
defective and unreasonably dangerous food;

Page 1 of 5

C. Breaching the implied warranty of merchantability; and
D. Any other acts and/or omissions of fault and/or negligence to be
discovered.
Id.
Chipotle has now filed a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. See Record Document 15-1. Chipotle contends that
Gilyard failed to meet the pleading requirements under Fed. R. Civ. P 8(a)(2) by providing
conclusory and unsupported allegations. See Record Document 20. Specifically, Chipotle
argues that Gilyard failed to prove that he was exposed to H. Pylori while eating at
Chipotle; when and how he was exposed to H. Pylori while eating at Chipotle; that
Chipotle contaminated or created an environment that could contaminate food; and that
Gilyard’s contraction of H. Pylori was caused by food, drink and/or utensils at Chipotle.
See id. at 1-2. Gilyard opposed the Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the complaint
sufficiently stated a cause of action under Louisiana law. See Record Document 19 at 4.
The Court will analyze the instant motion under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW AND ANALYSIS
I.

Rule 12(b)(6) Standard.
Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the requirements for

pleadings that state a claim for relief, requiring that a pleading contain “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” The standard for the
adequacy of complaints under Rule 8(a)(2) changed from the old, more plaintiff-friendly
“no set of facts” standard to a “plausibility” standard found in Bell Atlantic v. Twombly and
its progeny. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007). Under this standard, “factual

Page 2 of 5

allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . on the
assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Id.,
550 U.S. at 555-556, 127 S.Ct. at 1965. If a pleading only contains “labels and
conclusions” and “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action,” the pleading
does not meet the standards of Rule 8(a)(2). Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129
S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citation omitted).
In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a court generally “may not go outside
the pleadings.” Colle v. Brazos County, Texas, 981 F.2d 237, 243 (5th Cir. 1993). Courts
must also accept all allegations in a complaint as true. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129
S.Ct. at 1949. However, courts do not have to accept legal conclusions as facts. See id.
Courts considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) are only obligated to allow
those complaints that are facially plausible under the Iqbal and Twombly standard to
survive such a motion. See id. at 678-679, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-1950. If the complaint does
not meet this standard, it can be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted. See id. Such a dismissal ends the case “at the point of minimum
expenditure of time and money by the parties and the court.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 558,
127 S.Ct. at 1966.
II.

Analysis.
Pursuant to La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2315, Gilyard sues on the grounds that Chipotle

negligently operated its restaurant in a way exposed him to H. Pylori. The traditional dutyrisk tort analysis should be applied in the present case because a restaurant is not strictly
liable for the food it serves. See Chambers-Johnson v. Applebee’s Rest., 12-98 (La.App.
5 Cir. 9/11/12), 101 So.3d 473, 476 (citing Porteous v. St. Ann’s Cafe & Deli, 97-837

Page 3 of 5

(La.5/29/98), 713 So.2d 454, 456). The threshold issue in any negligence action is
whether the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty. See id. “A food provider, in selecting,
preparing and cooking food, including the removal of injurious substances, has a duty to
act as would a reasonably prudent man skilled in the culinary art in the selection and
preparation of food.” Porteous, 713 So.2d at 457. Thus, the pertinent issue for this case
is whether Gilyard’s claim contains factual allegations sufficient to show that Chipotle
failed to act as a prudent person skilled in food preparation.
There are no facts in the present complaint that show how Chipotle breached its
duty as a food provider. The only factual allegation made by Gilyard about Chipotle is that
he “regularly ate at CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC.” prior to contracting the bacterial
infection. See Record Document 15-1 at 2. There are no additional facts that convey how
Chipotle made Gilyard sick. For example, he does not speak specifically about how the
food was defective, nor how the reasonable care in making or storing the food was
breached. The pleading lacks any semblance of a fact that causally connects Gilyard’s
illness with Gilyard frequenting Chipotle. Furthermore, it does not make an allegation that
Chipotle provided food or utensils that were contaminated by H. Pylori. Gilyard’s
assumption that Chipotle’s food caused his illness because he ate there regularly is a
legal conclusion that should not be accepted as fact. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
Additionally, in Paragraph 12, Gilyard asserts four different ways to illustrate that
Chipotle is at fault in the present case. See Record Document 15 at 2. These four
examples are merely a “formulaic recitation of the elements” for a negligence suit and
offer no factual basis to substantiate the claim. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Thus, Gilyard

Page 4 of 5

has failed to meet the pleading standards under 8(a)(2) to withstand a Rule 12(b)(6)
Motion to Dismiss.
CONCLUSION
The Court finds that Gilyard has failed to state a claim for compensatory damages
upon which relief can be granted. Gilyard’s claim lacks a sufficient amount of factual
information that causally connects his illness with patronizing Chipotle. The pleading’s
language merely contains the elements for negligence and does not sufficiently show that
Chipotle was negligent, nor that Chipotle’s negligence resulted in contamination.
Therefore, under the standards set forth in Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, Gilyard’s pleading failed to state a claim for relief.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (Record Document 15) filed by
Chipotle be and is hereby GRANTED. All of Gilyard’s claims against Chipotle are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
A Judgment consistent with the terms of the instant Memorandum Ruling shall
issue herewith.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED, in Shreveport Louisiana, this 14th day of June, 2018.

Page 5 of 5