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.

Woodards v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

May 28, 2015

DeShandre Woodards, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., Defendant.

Kent M. Williams, Williams Law Firm, 1632 Homestead Trail, Long Lake, MN 55356; and Adam S. Levy, Law Office of Adam S. Levy, LLC, P.O. Box 88, Oreland, PA 19075; for Plaintiffs.

Jennifer M. Robbins and Angela M. Munoz-Kaphing, Robins Kaplan LLP, 2800 LaSalle Plaza, 800 LaSalle Avenue, Minneapolis, MN 55402; John K. Shunk, Messner Reeves LLP, 1430 Wykoop Street, Suite 300, Denver, CO 80202; and Richard J. Simmons, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, 333 South Hope Street, Forty-Third Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Objections [Doc. No. 41] to the April 3, 2015 Report and Recommendation ("R&R") on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Motion be denied. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's Objections are overruled, and the Court adopts the R&R.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Plaintiff's Allegations

The factual and procedural background of Plaintiff's case is well documented in the Magistrate Judge's R&R and is incorporated herein by reference.[1] Briefly stated, Plaintiff is a former hourly-paid employee of Defendant and was employed at Defendant's Golden Valley, Minnesota store. (Compl. [Doc. No. 1] ¶¶ 18, 35.) Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint on October 8, 2014, alleging that Defendant has violated the federal and Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Acts ("FLSA" and "MFLSA, " respectively) by maintaining a company-wide policy of requiring hourly-paid employees to work "off the clock" and without pay. (Id. ¶ 3.) On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff seeks recovery of unpaid overtime compensation and other wages. (Id. ¶ 4.) According to the Complaint:

5. Plaintiff shall request that the Court authorize concurrent notice to all former and current hourly-paid restaurant employees who were employed by Chipotle during the applicable time period, informing them of the pendency of this action and of their right to opt-in to this lawsuit pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
6. Plaintiff also proposes a Rule 23 class brought on behalf of themselves [sic] and all other former and current hourly-paid restaurant employees who were employed by Chipotle in Minnesota during the applicable time period.

(Id. ¶¶ 5-6.) Plaintiff defines the proposed collective as:

54. All current and former hourly-paid restaurant employees of Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. who, on or after October 8, 2011, were automatically punched off the clock and continued to work, or who otherwise worked "off the clock, " resulting in non-payment of regular wages or overtime wages.

(Id. ¶ 54.) However, Plaintiff has not yet filed a motion for collective or ...


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.