Schneider v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:16-cv-02200
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Schneider v. Chipotle, Judge Gilliam ordered plaintiffs to supplement their request for preliminary settlement approval about class certification and notice.
The plaintiffs seeking preliminary approval of the class-action settlement, the proposed settlement class, and Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.; the order specifically required the plaintiffs to provide supplemental briefing.
What happened
In Schneider v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., the plaintiffs asked the court to preliminarily approve an unopposed class-action settlement. The order did not decide whether to approve the settlement.
The court said the plaintiffs’ request appeared to seek certification under two provisions of the federal class-action rules, while the settlement agreement contemplated certification under a different provision. The court also said the agreement did not provide for court-ordered or declaratory relief. In addition, the court requested more information about the proposed digital notice campaign, including where internet banners would appear and which websites or social-media platforms would be used.
Judge Gilliam ordered the plaintiffs to submit supplemental briefing on both issues by January 20, 2020. The order does not state whether the court later granted or denied preliminary approval.
The detailed version
- Schneider v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. · No. 4:16-cv-02200
- Haywood Gilliam
- Jan. 13, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a proposed class-action settlement. The court issued an order directing supplemental briefing rather than ruling on the motion.
Class Certification
The plaintiffs stated that they were seeking certification of the settlement class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(c), as written in the opinion. The settlement agreement, however, contemplated certification under Rule 23(b)(3). The court also noted that the agreement did not provide for injunctive relief or declaratory relief. The court directed the plaintiffs to clarify the legal basis for the requested certification.
Notice Plan
The court also required more detail about the proposed notice plan in light of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Roes, 1-2 v. SFBSC Management, LLC. The settlement administrator had described a 60-day desktop and mobile internet-banner campaign but had not identified where the banners would be placed. The court directed the plaintiffs to explain which websites, social-media platforms, or other online platforms would be used and why the plan would be reasonably calculated to inform members of the proposed settlement.
Order
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ordered the plaintiffs to submit supplemental briefing on these two issues by January 20, 2020. The opinion does not state a disposition of the motion for preliminary approval.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.