Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
September 29, 2018, Filed
Case No. 16-cv-02200-HSG
[*526] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION, AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS' AND [**2] DEFENDANT'S DAUBERT MOTIONS
Re: Dkt. Nos. 87, 92, 95, 100, 101, 117
[*527] Pending before the Court are: (1) Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for reconsideration, Dkt. No. 87; (2) Defendant's motion for summary judgment, Dkt. No. 92; (3) Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, Dkt. No. 95; (4) Defendant's motion to exclude the expert report and testimony of Colin B. Weir, Dkt. No. 100; (5) Defendant's motion to exclude the expert report and testimony of Dr. Jon A. Krosnick, Dkt. No. 101; and (6) Plaintiffs' motion to exclude testimony of Defendant's experts Dr. Margaret Mellon, Ms. Sarah Butler, and Dr. Russell Mangum, Dkt. No. 117. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion for reconsideration, DENIES Defendant's motion for summary judgment, GRANTS the motion for class certification, and DENIES both parties' Daubert motions.
Plaintiffs Martin Schneider, Sarah Deigert, Theresa Gamage, and Nadia Parikka bring this putative class action against Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. ("Chipotle"), alleging that Chipotle's claims that its products were "non-GMO" and "GMO-free" violated California, Maryland, and New York consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs currently identify representations [**3] on three in-store signs displayed during the class period, which state, respectively, (1) "[w]hen it comes to our food, genetically modified ingredients don't make the cut," Dkt. No. 92-34; (2) "all of our food is non-GMO," Dkt. No. 92-21, and; (3) "only non-GMO ingredients," Dkt. No. 92-35. See Dkt. No. 131 at 12:21-24. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant's advertising and labeling was misleading and deceptive because consumers reasonably understood these representations to mean "that Chipotle does not serve food sourced from animals that have been raised on GMOs or genetically engineered feed." See Dkt. No. 1 ("Compl.") ¶¶ 2, 19-26; Dkt. No. 111 at 8. However, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant serves "protein products such as beef, chicken, and pork from poultry and livestock" raised on GMO feed, "dairy products such as cheese and sour cream" produced by milk from such animals, and beverages made with corn-syrup from GMO corn. Id.
II. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
328 F.R.D. 520 *; 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169554 **
MARTIN SCHNEIDER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., Defendant.
Subsequent History: Appeal terminated, 03/20/2019
Prior History: Schneider v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153579 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 4, 2016)
Plaintiffs', consumer, non-GMO, contends, advertising, damages, injunctive relief, ingredients, representations, class member, class certification, summary judgment, meat, quotation, products, animals, marks, class period, in-store, label, feed, deceived, dairy, nonmoving party, class action, misleading, food, misrepresentation, purchasing, DENIES
Civil Procedure, Judgments, Relief From Judgments, Antitrust & Trade Law, Consumer Protection, Deceptive & Unfair Trade Practices, Deceptive Labeling & Packaging, Summary Judgment, Entitlement as Matter of Law, Genuine Disputes, Legal Entitlement, Materiality of Facts, Burdens of Proof, Movant Persuasion & Proof, Nonmovant Persuasion & Proof, Constitutional Law, Case or Controversy, Standing, Elements, Deceptive Labeling & Packaging, State Regulation, Remedies, Injunctions, Preliminary Considerations, Justiciability, Mootness, Class Actions, Prerequisites for Class Action, Adequacy of Representation, Special Proceedings, Certification of Classes, Numerosity, Commonality, Typicality, Predominance, Superiority, Prerequisites for Class Action, Class Members, Standing, Deceptive & Unfair Trade Practices, Certification of Classes, Decertification, Evidence, Admissibility, Expert Witnesses, Daubert Standard, Helpfulness, Expert Witnesses, Preponderance of Evidence