Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Turner v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Colorado

December 18, 2015

LEAH TURNER, ARACELI GUTIERREZ, MARKEITTA FORD, JOLESSA WADE, DANYA GRANADO, BRETT CHARLES, and RUBY TSAO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., Defendant.

ORDER REGARDING NOTICE OF COLLECTIVE ACTION

JOHN L. KANE SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.

Considering the foregoing Joint Report Regarding Proposed Notice, and the arguments of counsel made therein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, AS FOLLOWS:

A. Persons to whom the Notice is directed.

In the “TO” line of page 1, Plaintiffs propose the following language:

“All current and former employees of Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc, who worked as an hourly-paid crew member, and worked off the clock at any time on or after February 2, 2012, resulting in the nonpayment of regular or overtime wages.”

Chipotle objects to this language and has proposed two changes to this description. First, Chipotle seeks to add the word “allegedly” before the word “worked.” Second, Chipotle contends that the starting date for the collective should be August 21, 2015. Chipotle has proposed these same changes to the description of the collective in Section 3, Current Status of the Lawsuit & Description of the Collective. Plaintiffs object to these revisions in favor of their proposed language.

(1) As to the use of the word “allegedly” in the “TO” line of page 1 of the Joint Submission and in the description of the collective in Section 3, Chipotle’s objection is sustained/OVERRULED and its proposal is granted/DENIED.
(2) As to the starting date for the collective, Chipotle’s objection is sustained/OVERRULED and its proposal is granted/DENIED.

B. Reference to state law claims.

In the RE: line on page 1 of the Notice, Plaintiffs propose the following language:

“Lawsuit Filed Against Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. under the Fair Labor Standards Act.”
Chipotle objects to this language and proposes the following amendment to this language:
“Lawsuit Filed Against Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as the State Laws of Colorado, Arizona, New Jersey and California.”

Chipotle also proposes to add “and the state laws identified above” to the first sentence of Section 1, Introduction. Chipotle further proposes to add “The lawsuit also includes claims arising under the laws of California, Arizona, New Jersey and Colorado” to the last sentence of the second paragraph of Section 2, Description of Claims. Plaintiffs object to these revisions in favor of their proposed language.

Chipotle’s objection is sustained/OVERRULED and its proposed amendments to the Notice are granted/DENIED.

C. Description of Plaintiffs’ FLSA claims.

In Section 2, Description of the Lawsuit, Plaintiffs propose the following language to describe their FSLA claims:

“The lawsuit alleges that Chipotle violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), by failing to pay its crew members for work performed ‘off the clock, ’ resulting in unpaid minimum or regular wages (for 40 or fewer hours per week) and/or unpaid overtime wages (for over 40 hours per week). The lawsuit claims that under the FLSA, crew members are entitled to double their unpaid wages, plus other compensation.”

Chipotle objects to this language and proposes the following revisions to this language:

“The lawsuit alleges that Chipotle violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), by failing to pay its crew members for work performed ‘off the clock, ’ resulting in unpaid minimum or regular wages (for 40 or fewer hours per week) and/or unpaid overtime wages (for over 40 hours per week). The lawsuit claims that, under the FLSA if Plaintiffs establish that a violation of the FLSA occurred, and that it did not occur in good faith, crew members are entitled to double their unpaid wages, plus other compensation.”

Plaintiffs object to these revisions in favor of their proposed language.

Chipotle’s objection is sustained/OVERRULED and its proposed amendment to the Notice is granted/DENIED.

D. Description of Chipotle’s defenses.

In Section 2, Description of the Lawsuit, Plaintiffs propose the following language to describe ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.