Gordon v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.
United States District Court, D. Colorado
June 19, 2019
TODD GORDON, MARC MERCER, KRISTEN MERCER, MICHELLE FOWLER, GREG LAWSON, and JUDY CONARD, individually and behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND
DIRECTION OF NOTICE
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
This
matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Unopposed
Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action
Settlement and Direction of Notice (the “Motion for
Preliminary Approval”). (Doc. # 102.)
For the
reasons set forth in Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in
Support of their Motion for Preliminary Approval (Doc. #
103), this Court grants preliminary approval of the
Settlement Agreement (Doc. # 102-1). Given the procedural
posture of this case, the Settlement Agreement is preliminary
approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate. See In re Integra
Realty Resources, Inc., 354 F.3d 1246, 1266 (10th Cir. 2004);
Rutter & Wilbanks Corp. v. Shell Oil Co., 314
F.3d 1180, 1188 (10th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED as follows:
1. The
Motion for Preliminary Approval (Doc. # 102) is GRANTED.
2.
Provisional Certification of the Settlement Class: Solely for
purposes of the Settlement, the Court conditionally certifies
the following class pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) ("Settlement Class"):
All persons residing in the United States who used a payment
card to make a purchase at an affected Chipotle or Pizzeria
Locale in-store point-of-sale device during the Security
Incident, [1] which as described in the definition of
Security Incident, occurred during the time frames and at the
stores set forth in Exhibit F to the Settlement Agreement and
Appendix A to the Publication Notice.
a. Excluded from the Settlement Class are (i) Defendant and
its officers and directors; (ii) all Settlement Class Members
who timely and validly request exclusion from the Settlement
Class; (iii) the Judge assigned to evaluate the fairness of
this settlement; (iv) the attorneys representing the parties
in the Litigation; (v) banks and other entities that issued
payment cards which were utilized at Chipotle during the
Security Incident; and (vi) any other Person found by a court
of competent jurisdiction to be guilty under criminal law of
initiating, causing, aiding or abetting the criminal activity
occurrence of the Security Incident or who pleads nolo
contendere to any such charge.
b. Subject to final approval of the Settlement, and for the
reasons set forth in Plaintiffs' Memorandum (Doc. # 103),
the Court finds and concludes for settlement purposes only
that the prerequisites to a class action, set forth in Rules
23(a) and (b), are satisfied in that:
(a) The Settlement Class is so numerous that joinder of all
members is impracticable;
(b) There are questions of law or fact common to the
Settlement Class;
(c) Plaintiffs and Class Counsel fairly and adequately
represent the Settlement Class;
(d) The claims of Plaintiffs are typical of those of
Settlement Class Members;
(e) Common issues predominate over any individual issues
affecting the members of the Settlement Class;
(f) Plaintiffs fairly and adequately protect and represent
the interests of all members of the Settlement Class, and
Plaintiffs' interests are aligned with the interests of
all other members of the Settlement Class; and (g) Settlement
of the Actions on a class ...