Case: Antoninetti v. Chipotle Mexican Grill

3:06-cv-02671 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California

Filed Date: Dec. 6, 2006

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On Dec. 6, 2006, several individuals with mobility issues who used wheelchairs, scooters, or other mobility devices filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against Chipotle restaurants, alleging violations of (1) the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq; (2) the California Public Accommodation Law, California Civil Code §§51, 52, and 54, et seq; (3) the California Health And Safety Code § 19950. The plaintiffs sought declaratory …

On Dec. 6, 2006, several individuals with mobility issues who used wheelchairs, scooters, or other mobility devices filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against Chipotle restaurants, alleging violations of (1) the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq; (2) the California Public Accommodation Law, California Civil Code §§51, 52, and 54, et seq; (3) the California Health And Safety Code § 19950. The plaintiffs sought declaratory judgment, an injunction ordering defendants to cease violations of and modify restaurants to become compliant with the statutes; statutory damages; compensatory damages; and attorneys' fees and costs.

The plaintiffs alleged that the 44-inch wall separating customers from the food preparation area in the defendant's restaurants only permitted non-wheelchair-using customers to view the ingredients and watch the construction of their burritos. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant had an unwritten policy that employees were permitted, but not required, to raise ingredients (either in spoons, a small cup, or in the pan) above the wall to make them visible to wheelchair-using customers, who were otherwise unable to see them. The defendant also permitted employees to place samples of food items in small cups, place them on a tray, and construct the burrito on the (lower) cashier counter or on an adjacent dining table, so that the wheelchair-using customer could view the making of their burrito. The plaintiffs alleged that this was "unfair, humiliating, and degrading" and denied them the true "Chipotle experience." The case was assigned to the calendar of Magistrate Judge Louisa S. Porter.

On Jan. 11, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a notice of related case. One of the plaintiffs in this case had also sued the defendant in Aug. 2005 as an individual, based on similar legal issues. See Antoninetti v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Case No. 3:05-cv-01660. The plaintiffs requested that the present case be reassigned to District Judge Napoleon A. Jones, Jr. and Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr., who had both already been assigned to the first-filed individual case. The motion was granted and the case was transferred on Jan. 24, 2007.

On Jan. 12, 2007, the defendant moved to dismiss the individual case or in the alternative, to consolidate it with this case. On Mar. 20, 2007, Judge Jones denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the individual case and granted their motion to consolidate for purposes of discovery only, leaving open the question of consolidation for trial.

Meanwhile, on Feb. 23, 2007, the defendant had implemented a written nationwide "Customers with Disabilities" policy ("the Policy"), and formally began training its employees on the policy between March and May 2007. Among other things, the Policy required managers to greet disabled customers and ask them whether they required accommodations, and instructed managers and crew that efficiency was secondary to ensuring a positive experience for disabled customers.

Both parties moved for summary judgment in the individual case, and on June 7, 2007, the court ordered that discovery be stayed until after Judge Jones issued his rulings on the cross motions for summary judgment in the individual case.

On June 17, 2007, the court granted in part and denied in part partial summary judgment on the plaintiff's claims in the individual case.

On Sept. 6, 2007, the defendant moved to consolidate the individual and putative class action cases for trial, but the motion was denied on Sept. 7, 2007. At this time, the individual case was already ready for trial, and this case was still in the formative stages. The Court thus found that consolidation for purposes of trial was not merited because the potential for delay and prejudice outweighed any savings of time or effort. 2007 WL 2669531 (Sept. 7, 2007).

In the individual case, a four-day bench trial was held in late November and early December 2007. On Jan. 10, 2008, Judge Jones concluded that the defendant's prior practice of informally accommodating customers had been insufficient to comply with the ADA, but that the Policy was sufficient. The court also found that the plaintiff was not entitled to an injunction requiring the defendant to lower the wall, but that the plaintiff was entitled to $5,000 in damages for the occasions on which he encountered barriers to his entrance into the restaurants. 2008 WL 111052 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2008). In April or May 2008, the plaintiff appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the defendant cross-appealed.

Meanwhile, on Oct. 28, 2009, the parties in this case jointly moved to stay the case until the final resolution of the individual case, and their motion was granted on Oct. 30, 2009. On Dec. 7, 2009, both cases were reassigned to Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz.

On Aug. 19, 2010, the Court lifted the stay in this case, finding that the individual case had largely concluded. On Sept. 1, 2010, the defendant filed a motion to reimpose the stay, but this was denied on Oct. 27, 2010.

Meanwhile, in the individual case, after a hearing on Nov. 16, 2010, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision that the Policy was compliant with the ADA, finding that the Policy was not equivalent because the “substitute experience” for disabled customers lacked the customers’ personal participation in the selection and preparation of the food that the full “Chipotle Experience” furnished and, therefore, violated the ADA. The Ninth Circuit remanded to the district court to determine the scope of injunctive relief necessary to remedy the plaintiff's inability to view the food preparation counters.

On Jan. 13, 2011, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which was deemed to be filed on Jan. 10, 2011.

On Feb. 11, 2011, the court ordered an order regulating discovery and other pretrial dates, including a mandatory settlement conference that was to be held on June 20, 2011 in the chambers of Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr.

On Apr. 18, 2011, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. On July 12, 2011, the parties jointly moved to vacate the settlement conference until after the court had ruled on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and the motion was granted the same day.

Meanwhile, the lead plaintiff had died on May 9, 2011, and on May 20, 2011, his widow and successor in interest to the claim filed a motion to substitute the plaintiff. The court granted the motion on July 25, 2011.

On August 28, 2012, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification without prejudice. The court found that the plaintiffs' claims for injunctive and declaratory relief were moot, because the defendant had already lowered the height of their counters in California restaurants and the Ninth Circuit had already held that the counter heights had been in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG"). Thus, a class action would not be superior to other available methods for adjudication. 2012 WL 3762440 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2012).

On Sept. 11, 2012, the plaintiffs moved for reconsideration and/or clarification. On Jan. 14, 2013, Judge Moskowitz issued an order denying the motion for reconsideration, granting the motion for clarification, and scheduling trial to begin on July 8, 2013. 2013 WL 149722 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2013).

On Feb. 6, 2013, the court issued a new order regulating discovery and other pretrial dates.

On Mar. 13, 2013, both parties moved for a 60-day continuance on the trial date and pre-trial deadlines, stating that they had been engaged in global settlement discussions regarding (1) the claims of all plaintiffs in this case, (2) the claims of all plaintiffs in the related class action Perkins v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Case No. 13-cv-01831-BTM, which was stayed in the Central District of California, and (3) the claims of individual plaintiffs in thirteen state court actions, and intended to consolidate the Perkins class action and various related state court actions with the current case to facilitate a global settlement. The parties had reached a tentative agreement currently being reviewed by the defendant and all of the plaintiffs in the various aforementioned actions. They stated that they hoped to file a joint motion for approval of their proposed global settlement by Mar. 29, 2013. This motion was granted on Mar. 14, 2013.

On May 10, 2013, the parties filed a joint motion for another 60-day continuance, stating that they had made “significant headway” toward a global settlement but were still exploring various issues. On May 20, 2013, the court granted the motion, extending the discovery and trial deadlines, and setting the trial date for November 18, 2013.

On June 19, 2013, a status conference took place, and the court ordered the parties to give notice to potential class members by e-mailing to disabled rights organizations and posting on the defendant’s website a notice saying that class certification had been denied and that the plaintiffs intended to settle the case and not appeal the denial.

On July 19, 2013, the parties filed a joint motion to amend the complaint to add new plaintiffs, and the court granted the motion on July 23, 2013.

On Aug. 14, 2013, the parties moved for approval of notice to the putative class regarding settlement. They had finalized settlement and stipulated to the language of the notice to be posted on the defendant’s website. On Aug. 20, 2013, the court granted the motion.

On Sept. 27, 2013, the parties filed a joint motion to retain jurisdiction to determine attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses, and to interpret and enforce the settlement agreement that they had reached. On Oct. 3, 2013, the district court granted the parties’ joint motion to retain jurisdiction.

On Nov. 12, 2013, the court issued an order stating that the settlement notice approved by the court had adequately protected the claims of the putative class members, such that its dismissal without prejudice would not infringe upon the rights of putative class members. Accordingly, it ordered that any joint motion for consolidation of Perkins and the present case and for dismissal should be filed within seven calendar days.

On Nov. 19, 2013, the plaintiffs in both Perkins and in this case as well as the defendant filed a joint motion to consolidate cases, for retention of jurisdiction by the court, and dismissal of the consolidated action. The parties also requested that the district court retain jurisdiction over the consolidated cases, even after dismissal for purposes of interpreting and enforcing the settlement agreement. Finally, contingent on the court consolidation of the two cases, the parties also jointly requested that the court dismiss the claims in the consolidated action.

On Dec. 3, 2013, the court granted the motion, consolidating Perkins and the present case, retaining its jurisdiction over the consolidated action even after dismissal, incorporating the settlement agreement, and finally dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice and dismissing the claims of putative class members without prejudice.

On Jan. 31, 2014, this case was transferred from Magistrate Judge McCurine to Magistrate Judge David H. Bartick. Then, on Mar. 28, 2014, the case was transferred to Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt.

On Dec. 2, 2013, the plaintiffs had filed a motion seeking attorneys’ fees and costs of $1,671,197.27, plus fees. On Sept. 29, 2014, the motion was granted in part and denied in part. The court found that the plaintiffs could have achieved the same result without their pursuit of class certification, injunctive relief, and thus reduced the award to account for the excessive time spent on class certification. The court awarded $317,927.50 in attorneys’ fees and $19,824.77 in costs to the plaintiffs, for a total of $337,752.27, and the case was ordered closed. 49 F.Supp.3d 710 (S.D. Cal. 2014).

One plaintiff appealed the award of attorneys’ fees to the Ninth Circuit on Oct. 27, 2014. On June 9, 2015, the Ninth Circuit denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the appeal. On Sept. 29, 2016, the Ninth Circuit panel unanimously found the case suitable for decision without oral argument, and ordered that the case be submitted on the briefs and record on Oct. 20, 2016.

On Jan. 4, 2017, a panel consisting of United States Circuit Judge Morgan B. Christen and United States Circuit Judge Richard C. Tallman for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, as well as Circuit Judge Barrington D. Parker, Jr. for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation, reviewed the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees and costs for abuse of discretion. Finding no abuse of discretion, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the award, with costs awarded to the defendant.

As of Feb. 3, 2018, the case appears to be closed.

Summary Authors

Eric Weiler (6/7/2010)

Matt Ramirez (8/4/2016)

Elizabeth Greiter (2/3/2018)

Related Cases

Antoninetti v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Southern District of California (2005)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4183729/parties/antoninetti-v-chipotle-mexican-grill-inc/


Judge(s)

Friedman, Daniel Mortimer (District of Columbia)

Jones, Napoleon A. Jr. (California)

McCurine, William Jr. (California)

Moskowitz, Barry Ted (California)

Porter, Louisa S. (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Vandeveld, Amy B. (California)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Cavanagh, Charles C. (Colorado)

Christensen, Kent Roger (California)

Evans, Melinda (California)

Groves, Matthew R. (Colorado)

Judge(s)

Friedman, Daniel Mortimer (District of Columbia)

Jones, Napoleon A. Jr. (California)

McCurine, William Jr. (California)

Moskowitz, Barry Ted (California)

Porter, Louisa S. (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Vandeveld, Amy B. (California)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Cavanagh, Charles C. (Colorado)

Christensen, Kent Roger (California)

Evans, Melinda (California)

Groves, Matthew R. (Colorado)

Hafer, Edward J. (Colorado)

Herter, Stacey L. (California)

Herzog, Jonathan J. (California)

Hurley, Gregory F. (California)

Scalia, John Francis (Virginia)

Sorensen, Matthew (Virginia)

Sugden, David R. (California)

Vu, Jeanne Uyen (California)

Weston, William S. (California)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

3:05-cv-01660

Docket

Antoninetti v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.

Jan. 4, 2017

Jan. 4, 2017

Docket
1

3:06-cv-02671

[Class Action Complaint]

Antoninetti v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.

2006 WL 4034053

Dec. 6, 2006

Dec. 6, 2006

Complaint
3

3:06-cv-02671

Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc.'s Answer And Affirmative Defenses

Antoninetti v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.

Dec. 28, 2006

Dec. 28, 2006

Pleading / Motion / Brief
3

3:06-cv-02671

Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc.'s Answer and Affirmative Defenses

Antoninetti v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.

Dec. 28, 2006

Dec. 28, 2006

Pleading / Motion / Brief
7

3:06-cv-02671

Notice and Order Regarding Early Neutral Evaluation

Antoninetti v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.

Jan. 5, 2007

Jan. 5, 2007

Order/Opinion
12

3:06-cv-02671

Order: (1) Denying Defendants' Motion To Dismiss Case No. 05CV1660-J (WMC); (2) Granting Defendants' Motion To Consolidate For Purposes Of Discovery Only

Antoninetti v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.

2007 WL 935623

March 20, 2007

March 20, 2007

Order/Opinion
13

3:06-cv-02671

Order Following Early Neutral Evaluation Conference, Setting Rule 26 Compliance and Notice of Case Management Conference

Antoninetti v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.

April 20, 2007

April 20, 2007

Order/Opinion

3:06-cv-02671

Order [Denying Defendant's Ex Parte Motion]

2007 WL 2669531

Sept. 7, 2007

Sept. 7, 2007

Order/Opinion

3:06-cv-02671

3:05-cv-01660

Order [Adjudicating Various Discovery Motions Of Both Parties]

Antoninetti v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.

2007 WL 3333109

Nov. 8, 2007

Nov. 8, 2007

Order/Opinion
205

3:06-cv-02671

3:05-cv-01660

Order: (1) Adopting Joint Proposed Legal Standards . . . ; (2) Summarily Dismissing Plaintiff's Supplemental Legal Standards . . . ; Adopting In Part And Dismissing In Part Defendant's Supplemental Legal Standards

Antoninetti v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.

2007 WL 4162804

Nov. 19, 2007

Nov. 19, 2007

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4183729/antoninetti-v-chipotle-mexican-grill-inc/

Last updated Aug. 2, 2022, 3:06 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT against Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., DOES 1-10 (Filing fee $350.), filed by Michael Rifkin, Maurizio Antoninetti, Jean Riker, James Perkins, Karen Friedman; Demand for Jury Trial(kaj) (Entered: 12/12/2006)

Dec. 6, 2006

Dec. 6, 2006

PACER
2

Summons Issued as to Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., DOES 1-10. (kaj) (Entered: 12/12/2006)

Dec. 6, 2006

Dec. 6, 2006

PACER
3

ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand by Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc..(Hurley, Gregory) (Entered: 12/28/2006)

Dec. 28, 2006

Dec. 28, 2006

PACER
4

NOTICE of Party With Financial Interest by Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (Hurley, Gregory) (Entered: 12/28/2006)

Dec. 28, 2006

Dec. 28, 2006

PACER
5

CERTIFICATE of Counsel Re Interested Parties by Gregory Francis Hurley on behalf of Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (Hurley, Gregory) (Entered: 12/28/2006)

Dec. 28, 2006

Dec. 28, 2006

PACER
6

Corporate Disclosure Statement by Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.. (Hurley, Gregory) (Entered: 12/28/2006)

Dec. 28, 2006

Dec. 28, 2006

PACER
7

Notice and ORDER; Early Neutral Evaluation set for 2/12/2007 02:00 PM in Courtroom H before Magistrate Judge Louisa S Porter. Signed by Magistrate Judge Louisa S Porter on 1/5/07. (kaj) (Entered: 01/08/2007)

Jan. 5, 2007

Jan. 5, 2007

RECAP
8

NOTICE by Maurizio Antoninetti of related case(s) 05cv1660 (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Vandeveld, Amy) Modified on 1/12/2007 (kaj. (Low number order prepared and sent to Judge Napoleon A. Jones Jr.) (Entered: 01/11/2007)

Jan. 11, 2007

Jan. 11, 2007

PACER
9

NOTICE of Appearance by Stacey L Herter on behalf of Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (Herter, Stacey) (Entered: 01/18/2007)

Jan. 18, 2007

Jan. 18, 2007

PACER
10

ORDER of transfer pursuant to low number rule. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 1/22/07. (cag) (Entered: 01/24/2007)

Jan. 24, 2007

Jan. 24, 2007

PACER
11

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Louisa S Porter : Based on the fact this case is no longer assigned to Judge Porter, the Early Neutral Evaluation scheduled for February 12, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. is vacated. (ep, ) (Entered: 02/12/2007)

Feb. 12, 2007

Feb. 12, 2007

PACER
12

ORDER denying dfts' 67 Motion to Dismiss Case 05cv1660, granting dfts' 66 Motion to Consolidate Cases 05cv1660 and 06cv2671 for purposes of discovery only at this time. Signed by Judge Napoleon A. Jones Jr. on 3/20/07. (Motions filed in case 05cv1660) (kaj) Modified on 3/21/2007 to add text (kaj). (Entered: 03/21/2007)

March 20, 2007

March 20, 2007

RECAP
13

ORDER following ENE Conf held on 4/16/07. Case Management Conference set for 6/7/2007 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom C before Magistrate Judge William McCurine Jr.. Signed by Judge William McCurine Jr. on 4/20/07. (bar, ) (Entered: 04/20/2007)

April 20, 2007

April 20, 2007

PACER
14

ORDER; on the court's own motion the case management/settlement conf currently set for 6/7/07 at 2:00pm will be telephonic; Signed by Magistrate Judge William McCurine Jr. on 5/14/07. (kaj) (Entered: 05/15/2007)

May 14, 2007

May 14, 2007

PACER
15

Joint MOTION for Discovery Plan by Karen Friedman. (Vandeveld, Amy) (Entered: 05/21/2007)

May 21, 2007

May 21, 2007

PACER
16

ORDER; on 6/7/07 the court held a telephonic case management/settlement conf; discovery shal lbe stayed until further order of the court; pla shall contact the court within three business days after Judge Jones issues his ruling on the cross motions for summary judgment in the related case of Antoninetti v. Chipotle, 05cv1660-J(WMc); Signed by Magistrate Judge William McCurine Jr. on 6/8/07. (kaj) (Entered: 06/08/2007)

June 8, 2007

June 8, 2007

PACER
17

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge William McCurine Jr.: Case Management Conference held on 6/8/2007 (Tape #n/a).(Plaintiff Attorney Amy Vandeveld).(Defendant Attorney Stacie Herter). (rab) (Entered: 06/12/2007)

June 8, 2007

June 8, 2007

PACER
18

NOTICE of Change of Address by Gregory Francis Hurley (Hurley, Gregory) (Entered: 08/28/2007)

Aug. 28, 2007

Aug. 28, 2007

PACER
19

NOTICE OF RELATED CASE(S) by Maurizio Antoninetti of case(s) cv 08-03002 (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Vandeveld, Amy) Modified on 8/21/2008 (no low number order prepared, Central District case #)(joeh). (Entered: 08/15/2008)

1 Proof of Service

View on PACER

Aug. 15, 2008

Aug. 15, 2008

PACER
20

ORDER, On the Courts own motion a telephonic status conference will be held in on Thursday, September 4, 2008, at 4:30 p.m. Signed by Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr. on 8/21/08. (asw)(av1). (Entered: 08/22/2008)

Aug. 22, 2008

Aug. 22, 2008

PACER
21

NOTICE of Appearance by John Francis Scalia on behalf of Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (Scalia, John) Modified on 9/5/2008 - Sent e-mail to atty re improper signatures. (mdc) (Entered: 09/04/2008)

Sept. 4, 2008

Sept. 4, 2008

PACER
23

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr:Telephonic Status Conference held on 9/4/2008(Tape #n/a).(Plaintiff Attorney Amy B. Vandeveld).(Defendant Attorney Gregory Fancis Hurley, John Scalia).(rab) (Entered: 09/26/2008)

Sept. 4, 2008

Sept. 4, 2008

PACER
22

ORDER Following Telephonic Status Conference: On 9/4/08, the Court convened a telephonic Early Neutral Evaluation Conference. The Court will reschedule a further telephonic status conference for 12/16/08, at 9:00 a.m. Signed by Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr on 9/5/08. (asw) (kaj). (Entered: 09/05/2008)

Sept. 5, 2008

Sept. 5, 2008

PACER
24

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr:Telephonic Status Conference held on 12/16/2008(Tape #n/a).(Plaintiff Attorney Amy B. Vandeveld).(Defendant Attorney Gregory F. Hurley).(rab) (Entered: 12/17/2008)

Dec. 16, 2008

Dec. 16, 2008

PACER
25

Order Following Status Conference set for 4/24/2009 03:00 PM in Courtroom C before Magistrate Judge William McCurine Jr.. Signed by Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr on 04-09-09. (bjb) (Entered: 04/10/2009)

April 9, 2009

April 9, 2009

PACER
26

Amended ORDER Setting Telephonic Status Conference. On or before April 21,2009, counsel for the parties shall lodge a meaningful written statement discussing why the Court should continue to stay discovery in this case. Counsel for defendant is instructed to initiate the call.( Telephonice Status Conference set for 4/24/2009 03:00 PM in Courtroom C before Magistrate Judge William McCurine Jr.). Signed by Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr on 04/17/09. (bjb) (Entered: 04/17/2009)

April 17, 2009

April 17, 2009

PACER
27

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr:Telephonic Status Conference held on 4/24/2009(Tape #n/a).(Plaintiff Attorney Amy B. Vandeveld).(Defendant Attorney Gregory F. Hurley).(rab) (Entered: 04/27/2009)

April 24, 2009

April 24, 2009

PACER
28

ORDER following telephonic status conference. Counsel for defendants is instructed to initiate the call.( Telephonic Status Conference set for 10/23/2009 09:00 AM in Courtroom C before Magistrate Judge William McCurine Jr.) Signed by Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr on 04/26/09. (bjb) (jrl). (Entered: 04/27/2009)

April 27, 2009

April 27, 2009

RECAP
29

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr: Telephonic Status Conference held on 10/23/2009(Tape #n/a). (Plaintiff Attorney Amy B. Vandeveld). (Defendant Attorney Gregory F. Hurley). (rab) (Entered: 10/27/2009)

Oct. 23, 2009

Oct. 23, 2009

PACER
30

ORDER following telephonic ENE conference held 10/23/09. If the parties desire to continue to stay discovery in this case an application to Judge Jones must be made on or before October 28, 2009. ( Telephonic Status Hearing set for 11/13/2009 04:45 PM in Courtroom C before Magistrate Judge William McCurine Jr.) Defense counsel is instructed to initiate the call. Signed by Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr on 10/26/09. (bjb) (jrl). (Entered: 10/27/2009)

Oct. 26, 2009

Oct. 26, 2009

RECAP
31

Joint MOTION to Stay Pending Appeal in Related Case by Maurizio Antoninetti, Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.. (Vandeveld, Amy) (Entered: 10/28/2009)

Oct. 28, 2009

Oct. 28, 2009

PACER
32

ORDER granting 31 Motion to Stay; Case is stayed until final resolution of the related case, Antoninetti v. Chipotle, Case No. 3:05CV1660-J-WMC. Signed by Judge Napoleon A. Jones, Jr on 10/30/09. (ksr) (jrl). (Entered: 10/30/2009)

Oct. 30, 2009

Oct. 30, 2009

RECAP
33

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr: Telephonic Status Hearing set for 11/13/2009 before Magistrate Judge William McCurine Jr. - Off Calendar. Case Stayed per 32 . (mjm) (Entered: 11/17/2009)

Nov. 13, 2009

Nov. 13, 2009

PACER
34

Minute Order: Judge Napoleon A. Jones, Jr. is no longer assigned to case and Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz is now randomly assigned to the case. The new case number is 06-cv-2671-BTM-WMC. (jrd) (Entered: 12/07/2009)

Dec. 7, 2009

Dec. 7, 2009

PACER
35

NOTICE of Appearance by Charles C Cavanagh on behalf of Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Cavanagh, Charles) Notified atty incorrect judge in caption (jer). (Entered: 08/04/2010)

1 Proof of Service

View on PACER

Aug. 4, 2010

Aug. 4, 2010

PACER
36

ORDER SETTING TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE. On the Court's own motion, a telephonic status conference will be held on September 3, 2010 at 9:45 am before Magistrate Judge William McCurine Jr. Signed by Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr on 8/10/2010.(jer) (Entered: 08/10/2010)

Aug. 10, 2010

Aug. 10, 2010

PACER
37

MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities)(Scalia, John) (jer). (Entered: 08/11/2010)

1 Memo of Points and Authorities

View on PACER

Aug. 11, 2010

Aug. 11, 2010

PACER
38

ORDER LIFTING STAY. The Court had stayed this case pending the resolution of a related case, filed by Plaintiff individually, involving similar issues. That case has now largely concluded. The Court therefore lifts the stay in its entirety. The magistrate judge has scheduled a telephonic status conference for September 3, 2010 at 9:45 a.m. The parties may discuss their discovery plans with the magistrate judge at that time. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 8/19/2010.(jer) (Entered: 08/20/2010)

Aug. 19, 2010

Aug. 19, 2010

PACER
39

ORDER Granting Defendant Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc's 37 Motion to Withdraw. The law firm of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, and Gregory F. Hurley and John F. Scalia thereof, are withdrawn as counsel of record for Defendant Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 8/19/2010. (jer) (Entered: 08/20/2010)

Aug. 19, 2010

Aug. 19, 2010

PACER
40

PRO HAC VICE APPOINTED: Matthew R. Groves appearing for Defendant Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(leh) (Entered: 08/30/2010)

Aug. 26, 2010

Aug. 26, 2010

PACER
41

MOTION to Reimpose Stay by Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. re 38 Order Lifting Stay, (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities, # 2 Proof of Service, # 3 Proposed Order)(Groves, Matthew) changed event type to motion; emailed atty re proposed orders on the docket(jer). (Entered: 09/01/2010)

1 Memo of Points and Authorities

View on PACER

2 Proof of Service

View on PACER

3 Proposed Order

View on PACER

Sept. 1, 2010

Sept. 1, 2010

PACER
42

ORDER Setting Telephonic Status Conference. A telephonic status conference was held in the above captioned case on September 3, 2010. Participating were Amy Vandeveld for Plaintiff and Matt Groves for Defendant. After discussion of the status of the case, the Court will schedule a further telephonic status conference for October 4, 2010, at 4:30 p.m. Counsel for Defendant is instructed to initiate the joint call to the Court at 619-557-6624. Signed by Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr on 9/3/2010.(jer) (Entered: 09/03/2010)

Sept. 3, 2010

Sept. 3, 2010

PACER
44

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr: Status Conference re discovery held on 9/3/2010. Order issued.(CD# 9/3/2010 n/a). (Plaintiff Attorney Amy Vandeveld). (Defendant Attorney Matt Groves). (axk) (Entered: 09/12/2010)

Sept. 3, 2010

Sept. 3, 2010

PACER
43

PRO HAC VICE APPOINTED: Edward J. Hafer appearing for Defendant Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ag) (Entered: 09/09/2010)

Sept. 8, 2010

Sept. 8, 2010

PACER
45

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr: Status Conference re Discovery held on 10/4/2010. Order to issue.(CD# 10/4/2010 n/a). (Plaintiff Attorney Amy Vandeveld). (Defendant Attorney Matt Groves). (axk) (Entered: 10/06/2010)

Oct. 4, 2010

Oct. 4, 2010

PACER
52

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr: Discovery Conference held on 10/4/2010. Order issued.(CD# 10/4/2010 n/a). (Plaintiff Attorney Amy Vandeveld). (Defendant Attorney Matt Groves). (axk) (Entered: 10/19/2010)

Oct. 4, 2010

Oct. 4, 2010

PACER
46

ORDER: On October 4, 2010, a telephonic status conference was held. Participating were Amy Vandeveld (counsel for Plaintiff) and Matt Groves (counsel for Defendant). Based upon the statements of counsel and the status of the case the Court will schedule a further telephonic status conference on October 21, 2010, at 4:30 p.m. A joint discovery plan is due on or before October 20, 2010. The parties are reminded the Court does not bifurcate discovery in class action cases. Signed by Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr on 10/6/10.(jer) (Entered: 10/07/2010)

Oct. 6, 2010

Oct. 6, 2010

PACER
47

NON Opposition re 41 MOTION to Stay filed by Maurizio Antoninetti. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Vandeveld, Amy)(jer). (Entered: 10/15/2010)

1 Proof of Service

View on PACER

Oct. 15, 2010

Oct. 15, 2010

PACER
48

NOTICE of Appearance by David R Sugden on behalf of Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (Sugden, David) (jer). (Entered: 10/19/2010)

Oct. 19, 2010

Oct. 19, 2010

PACER
49

NOTICE of Appearance by Melinda Evans on behalf of Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (Evans, Melinda) (jer). (Entered: 10/19/2010)

Oct. 19, 2010

Oct. 19, 2010

PACER
50

NOTICE of Appearance by Kent Roger Christensen on behalf of Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (Christensen, Kent) (jer). (Entered: 10/19/2010)

Oct. 19, 2010

Oct. 19, 2010

PACER
51

Supplemental Document Memorandum in Further Support of Motion to Reimpose Stay of Action re 41 MOTION to Stay, 47 Non Opposition to Motionby Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sugden, David) Modified text to correct event type; termed motion. Emailed atty re proposed orders on the docket. (jer). (Entered: 10/19/2010)

1 Proposed Order

View on PACER

Oct. 19, 2010

Oct. 19, 2010

PACER
55

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr: Status Conference re Discovery was not held on 10/21/2010 due to a conflict in the Court's calendar. Order to issue.(CD# 10/21/2010 n/a). (Plaintiff Attorney Amy Vandeveld). (Defendant Attorney Matt Groves). (axk) (Entered: 11/03/2010)

Oct. 21, 2010

Oct. 21, 2010

PACER
53

MINUTE ORDER submitting 41 Motion to Stay (rfm) (Entered: 10/25/2010)

Oct. 22, 2010

Oct. 22, 2010

PACER
54

ORDER Denying 41 Motion to Reimpose Stay. The stay shall remain lifted and discovery shall be conducted such that there is no duplication of effort on issues to be determined on remand in the related single-plaintiff case. The Magistrate Judge shall schedule a telephonic status conference. The Parties may discuss their discovery plans at that time. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 10/27/2010. (jer)(jrl). (Entered: 10/27/2010)

Oct. 27, 2010

Oct. 27, 2010

RECAP
56

ORDER Scheduling Telephonic Status Conference. A telephonic status regarding discovery will be held on November 10, 2010, at 4:00 p.m. Counsel for Defendant is instructed to initiate the joint call to the Court at 619-557-6624. Signed by Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr on 11/3/10.(jer) (jrl). (Entered: 11/03/2010)

Nov. 3, 2010

Nov. 3, 2010

PACER
57

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr: Telephonic Status Conference re Discovery held on 11/10/2010. Order to issue.(CD# 11/10/2010 n/a). (Plaintiff Attorney Amy Vandeveld). (Defendant Attorney Matt Groves, David Sugden). (axk) (Entered: 11/15/2010)

Nov. 10, 2010

Nov. 10, 2010

PACER
58

ORDER Regulating Discovery and Other Pretrial Dates. A full day Mandatory Settlement Conference shall be conducted on April 18, 2011 at 9:30 a.m. in the chambers of Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr. The final Pretrial Conference is scheduled on the calendar of Judge Moskowitz on November 9, 2011 at 3:00 p.m. Signed by Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr on 11/24/2010.(jer) (jrl). (Entered: 11/29/2010)

Nov. 24, 2010

Nov. 24, 2010

PACER
59

Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint by Maurizio Antoninetti. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Vandeveld, Amy) (jer). (Entered: 01/10/2011)

1 Proof of Service

View on PACER

Jan. 10, 2011

Jan. 10, 2011

PACER
61

AMENDED COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against All Defendants, filed by James Perkins, Karen Friedman, Jean Riker, and Michael Rifkin. (jer) (Entered: 01/13/2011)

Jan. 10, 2011

Jan. 10, 2011

PACER
60

ORDER Granting 59 Joint Motion to Allow Plaintiffs to File First Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint shall be deemed filed on January 10, 2011. Defendant shall file a responsive pleading to the First Amended Complaint or motion on or before January 28, 2011. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 1/13/11. (jer) (av1). (Entered: 01/13/2011)

Jan. 13, 2011

Jan. 13, 2011

PACER
62

ORDER Scheduling Telephonic Status Conference. A telephonic status regarding discovery will be held January 19, 2011, at 3:30 p.m. Counsel for Defendant is instructed to initiate the joint call to the Court at 619-557-6624. Signed by Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr on 1/18/2011.(jer) (av1). (Entered: 01/18/2011)

Jan. 18, 2011

Jan. 18, 2011

PACER
63

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr: Telephonic Status Conference re Discovery held on 1/19/2011. Order to issue.(CD# 1/19/2011 n/a). (Plaintiff Attorney Amy Vandeveld). (Defendant Attorney Melinda Evans). (axk) (Entered: 01/20/2011)

Jan. 19, 2011

Jan. 19, 2011

PACER
64

ORDER Re Status Conference. On January 28, 2011, a telephonic status conference regarding discovery was held. Based upon the statements of counsel and the status of the case the Court issues this Order regarding protective orders. Signed by Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr on 1/20/2011.(jer)(mam). (Entered: 01/20/2011)

Jan. 20, 2011

Jan. 20, 2011

PACER
65

MOTION to Strike 61 Amended Complaint, Motion to Strike Portions of First Amended Complaint by Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities, # 2 Proof of Service)(Evans, Melinda) (jer). (Entered: 01/28/2011)

1 Memo of Points and Authorities

View on PACER

2 Proof of Service

View on PACER

Jan. 28, 2011

Jan. 28, 2011

PACER
67

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr: Telephonic Status Conference not held on 1/31/2011. (CD# 1/31/2011 n/a). (axk) (Entered: 02/07/2011)

Jan. 31, 2011

Jan. 31, 2011

PACER
66

NOTICE of Appearance by Amy B. Vandeveld on behalf of Maurizio Antoninetti (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Vandeveld, Amy) (jer). (Entered: 02/04/2011)

1 Proof of Service

View on PACER

Feb. 4, 2011

Feb. 4, 2011

PACER
68

Ex Parte MOTION to Continue Case Management Dates by Maurizio Antoninetti. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration in Support of Ex Parte Application, # 2 Proof of Service)(Vandeveld, Amy)(jer). (Entered: 02/08/2011)

1 Declaration in Support of Ex Parte Application

View on PACER

2 Proof of Service

View on PACER

Feb. 8, 2011

Feb. 8, 2011

PACER
69

RESPONSE to Motion re 68 Ex Parte MOTION to Continue Case Management Dates : NON-OPPOSITION filed by Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.. (Evans, Melinda) (jer). (Entered: 02/09/2011)

Feb. 9, 2011

Feb. 9, 2011

PACER
70

ORDER Regulating Discovery and Other Pretrial Dates. A full day Mandatory Settlement Conference shall be conducted on June 20, 2011 at 9:30 a.m. in the chambers of Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr. Counsel shall submit confidential settlement briefs directly to chambers on or before June 13, 2011. The Proposed Final Pretrial Conference Order as described above shall be prepared, served, and lodged on or before January 3, 2012. The final Pretrial Conference is scheduled on the calendar of Judge Moskowitz on January 10, 2012 at 3:00 p.m. Signed by Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr on 2/11/2011. (jer) Modified text on 2/15/2011 (jcj). (Entered: 02/14/2011)

Feb. 11, 2011

Feb. 11, 2011

PACER
71

MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities)(Groves, Matthew) (jer). (Entered: 02/14/2011)

1 Memo of Points and Authorities

View on PACER

Feb. 14, 2011

Feb. 14, 2011

PACER
72

NOTICE by Jay Rifkin Successor in Interest to Claims of Plaintiff Michael Rifkin, deceased (Vandeveld, Thomas) (jer). (Entered: 02/15/2011)

Feb. 15, 2011

Feb. 15, 2011

PACER
73

Third Party MOTION to Substitute Party Plaintiff, Michael Rifkin by Jay Rifkin. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities In Support of Motion to Substitute Plaintiff Michael Rifkin, # 2 Declaration of Successor-In-Interest Jay Rifkin, # 3 Proof of Service)(Vandeveld, Thomas)(jer). (Entered: 02/15/2011)

1 Memo of Points and Authorities In Support of Motion to Substitute Plaintiff Mich

View on PACER

2 Declaration of Successor-In-Interest Jay Rifkin

View on PACER

3 Proof of Service

View on PACER

Feb. 15, 2011

Feb. 15, 2011

PACER
74

ORDER Granting 71 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Matthew R. Groves terminated as counsel for Defendant Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 2/17/11. (jer) (jrl). (Entered: 02/17/2011)

Feb. 17, 2011

Feb. 17, 2011

PACER
75

RESPONSE in Opposition re 65 MOTION to Strike 61 Amended Complaint, Motion to Strike Portions of First Amended Complaint filed by Maurizio Antoninetti. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Vandeveld, Thomas) (jer). (Entered: 02/25/2011)

1 Proof of Service

View on PACER

Feb. 25, 2011

Feb. 25, 2011

PACER
76

REPLY to Response to Motion re 65 MOTION to Strike 61 Amended Complaint, Motion to Strike Portions of First Amended Complaint filed by Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (Evans, Melinda) (jer). (Entered: 03/10/2011)

March 10, 2011

March 10, 2011

PACER
77

ORDER RE: PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr on 3/17/2011.(jer) (jrl). (Entered: 03/18/2011)

March 17, 2011

March 17, 2011

RECAP
78

MINUTE ORDER submitting 65 Motion to Strike (rfm) (Entered: 03/18/2011)

March 17, 2011

March 17, 2011

PACER
81

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr: Telephonic Discovery Conference held on 3/18/2011. Order to issue.(CD# 3/18/2011 n/a). (Plaintiff Attorney Amy Vandeveld). (Defendant Attorney Melinda Evans). (axk) (Entered: 03/29/2011)

March 18, 2011

March 18, 2011

PACER
85

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr: Telephonic Discovery Conference held on 3/18/2011. Order to issue.(CD# 3/18/2011 n/a). (Plaintiff Attorney Amy Vandeveld). (Defendant Attorney Melinda Evans). (axk) (Entered: 04/05/2011)

March 18, 2011

March 18, 2011

PACER
79

ORDER Rescheduling Settlement Conference. Due to a conflict in the Court's calendar the settlement conference currently scheduled for June 20, 2011 is continued to June 22, 2011, at 9:30 a.m. On or before April 1, 2011, the parties shall submit confidential letters to the Court regarding their position on whether the parties desire a full day settlement conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr on 3/23/2011.(jer) (jcj). (Entered: 03/24/2011)

March 24, 2011

March 24, 2011

PACER
80

Joint MOTION for Protective Order and Proposed Order by Maurizio Antoninetti. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Joint Protective Order, # 2 Proof of Service)(Vandeveld, Thomas) (jer). (Entered: 03/28/2011)

1 Exhibit Proposed Joint Protective Order

View on PACER

2 Proof of Service

View on PACER

March 28, 2011

March 28, 2011

PACER
82

ORDER re Discovery. On or before March 29, 2011, Defendant shall submit a letter brief regarding the issue regarding disclosure Plaintiff's expert fee income. Plaintiff shall file a reply a brief on or before April 8, 2011. The discovery hearing currently scheduled for April 4, 2011 is continued to April 6, 2011 at 3:00 p.m. Signed by Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr on 3/29/2011.(jer) (jcj). (Entered: 03/30/2011)

March 29, 2011

March 29, 2011

PACER
83

PROTECTIVE ORDER Re: Evidence of Transactions. Signed by Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr on 4/5/11. (jer) (jcj). (Entered: 04/05/2011)

April 5, 2011

April 5, 2011

PACER
84

ORDER Rescheduling Status Conference. For good cause shown, the Court will reschedule the telephonic status for April 20, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. Ms. Vandeveld (counsel for Plaintiff) is instructed to initiate the call by first telephoning Ms. Evans (counsel for Defendant) and then telephoning the Court at 619-557-6624. Signed by Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr on 4/5/11.(jer) (Entered: 04/05/2011)

April 5, 2011

April 5, 2011

PACER
86

RESPONSE in Opposition re 73 Third Party MOTION to Substitute Party Plaintiff, Michael Rifkin filed by Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.. (Evans, Melinda)(jer). (Entered: 04/08/2011)

April 8, 2011

April 8, 2011

PACER
87

REPLY to Response to Motion re 73 Third Party MOTION to Substitute Party Plaintiff, Michael Rifkin filed by Jay Rifkin. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Supplemental Declaration with copy of death certificate, # 2 Proof of Service)(Vandeveld, Thomas) (jer). (Entered: 04/15/2011)

1 Declaration Supplemental Declaration with copy of death certificate

View on PACER

2 Proof of Service

View on PACER

April 15, 2011

April 15, 2011

PACER
88

MOTION to Certify Class by Maurizio Antoninetti. (Attachments: # 1 Memo of Points and Authorities, # 2 Declaration of Amy B. Vandeveld, # 3 Declaration of Thomas J. Vandeveld, # 4 Declaration Steven Day)(Vandeveld, Amy) (jer). (Entered: 04/18/2011)

1 Memo of Points and Authorities

View on PACER

2 Declaration of Amy B. Vandeveld

View on PACER

3 Declaration of Thomas J. Vandeveld

View on PACER

4 Declaration Steven Day

View on PACER

April 18, 2011

April 18, 2011

PACER
89

DECLARATION re 88 MOTION to Certify Class by Plaintiff Maurizio Antoninetti. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Alsanjak, # 2 Declaration Antoninetti, # 3 Declaration Baker, # 4 Declaration Barnett)(Vandeveld, Amy) (jer). (Entered: 04/18/2011)

1 Declaration Alsanjak

View on PACER

2 Declaration Antoninetti

View on PACER

3 Declaration Baker

View on PACER

4 Declaration Barnett

View on PACER

April 18, 2011

April 18, 2011

PACER
90

DECLARATION re 88 MOTION to Certify Class by Plaintiff Maurizio Antoninetti. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Burghardt, # 2 Declaration Chandler, # 3 Declaration Chenier, # 4 Declaration Clady)(Vandeveld, Amy) (jer). (Entered: 04/18/2011)

1 Declaration Burghardt

View on PACER

2 Declaration Chandler

View on PACER

3 Declaration Chenier

View on PACER

4 Declaration Clady

View on PACER

April 18, 2011

April 18, 2011

PACER
91

DECLARATION re 88 MOTION to Certify Class by Plaintiff Maurizio Antoninetti. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Eichenlaub, # 2 Declaration Fernandez, # 3 Declaration Fogarty, # 4 Declaration Frias, # 5 Declaration Friedman)(Vandeveld, Amy) (jer). (Entered: 04/18/2011)

1 Declaration Eichenlaub

View on PACER

2 Declaration Fernandez

View on PACER

3 Declaration Fogarty

View on PACER

4 Declaration Frias

View on PACER

5 Declaration Friedman

View on PACER

April 18, 2011

April 18, 2011

PACER
92

DECLARATION re 88 MOTION to Certify Class by Plaintiff Maurizio Antoninetti. (Attachments: # 1 Goldkorn, # 2 Greenberg, # 3 Hanby, # 4 Jacobson)(Vandeveld, Amy) (jer). (Entered: 04/18/2011)

1 Goldkorn

View on PACER

2 Greenberg

View on PACER

3 Hanby

View on PACER

4 Jacobson

View on PACER

April 18, 2011

April 18, 2011

PACER
93

DECLARATION re 88 MOTION to Certify Class by Plaintiff Maurizio Antoninetti. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Kalafalitch, # 2 Declaration Landon, # 3 Declaration Langjahr, # 4 Declaration Lennon)(Vandeveld, Amy)(jer). (Entered: 04/18/2011)

1 Declaration Kalafalitch

View on PACER

2 Declaration Landon

View on PACER

3 Declaration Langjahr

View on PACER

4 Declaration Lennon

View on PACER

April 18, 2011

April 18, 2011

PACER
94

DECLARATION re 88 MOTION to Certify Class by Plaintiff Maurizio Antoninetti. (Attachments: # 1 Minnis, # 2 Needles, # 3 Nelson, # 4 Notar, # 5 Ott)(Vandeveld, Amy) (jer). (Entered: 04/18/2011)

1 Minnis

View on PACER

2 Needles

View on PACER

3 Nelson

View on PACER

4 Notar

View on PACER

5 Ott

View on PACER

April 18, 2011

April 18, 2011

PACER
95

DECLARATION re 88 MOTION to Certify Class by Plaintiff Maurizio Antoninetti. (Attachments: # 1 Reed, # 2 Ridley, # 3 Riker, # 4 Robertson)(Vandeveld, Amy)(jer). (Entered: 04/18/2011)

1 Reed

View on PACER

2 Ridley

View on PACER

3 Riker

View on PACER

4 Robertson

View on PACER

April 18, 2011

April 18, 2011

PACER
96

DECLARATION re 88 MOTION to Certify Class by Plaintiff Maurizio Antoninetti. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Sayles, # 2 Declaration Shuman, # 3 Declaration Sinnegar, # 4 Declaration Stewart)(Vandeveld, Amy)(jer). (Entered: 04/18/2011)

1 Declaration Sayles

View on PACER

2 Declaration Shuman

View on PACER

3 Declaration Sinnegar

View on PACER

4 Declaration Stewart

View on PACER

April 18, 2011

April 18, 2011

PACER
97

DECLARATION re 88 MOTION to Certify Class by Plaintiff Maurizio Antoninetti. (Attachments: # 1 Warren, # 2 Wheeler, # 3 Williams)(Vandeveld, Amy) (jer). (Entered: 04/18/2011)

1 Warren

View on PACER

2 Wheeler

View on PACER

3 Williams

View on PACER

April 18, 2011

April 18, 2011

PACER
98

NOTICE Regarding Exhibit Attachment by Maurizio Antoninetti re 88 MOTION to Certify Class (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Vandeveld, Amy)(jer). (Entered: 04/18/2011)

1 Proof of Service

View on PACER

April 18, 2011

April 18, 2011

PACER
104

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr: Telephonic Discovery Hearing held on 4/20/2011. Court to issue order.(CD# 4/20/2011 n/a). (Plaintiff Attorney Amy B. Vandeveld). (Defendant Attorney Melinda Evans). (rab) (Entered: 04/25/2011)

April 20, 2011

April 20, 2011

PACER
99

ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part Chipotle's Motion to Compel Further Answers to Request for Production No. 12. Signed by Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr on 4/21/11.(jer) (jcj). (Entered: 04/21/2011)

April 21, 2011

April 21, 2011

RECAP

Case Details

State / Territory: California

Case Type(s):

Disability Rights

Special Collection(s):

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: Dec. 6, 2006

Case Ongoing: No reason to think so

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

The plaintiffs sought to represent “all persons with mobility disabilities who use wheelchairs or motorized mobility aides, who have been or will be denied their rights under the ADA and state law to access goods, services, benefits, advantages, privileges and accommodations provided by Chipotle at its approximately 83 restaurants within the state of California.”

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Denied

Defendants

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (Denver), Private Entity/Person

Defendant Type(s):

Restaurant

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.

State law

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Monetary Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Attorneys fees

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Litigation

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Amount Defendant Pays: $337,752.27

Issues

General:

Access to public accommodations - privately owned

Barrier Removal

Bathrooms

Disparate Treatment

Parking

Reasonable Accommodations

Reasonable Modifications

Discrimination-basis:

Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)

Disability:

Mobility impairment

Type of Facility:

Non-government for profit