Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
November 4, 2020, Decided; November 4, 2020, Filed
Case No. 16-cv-02200-HSG
[*591] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL [**2] SETTLEMENT APPROVAL, AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ATTORNEYS' FEES, COSTS, AND INCENTIVE AWARDS
Re: Dkt. Nos. 224, 226
Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs' motions for final approval of class action settlement and for attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, and a class representative enhancement payment. Dkt. Nos. 224, 226. The Court held a final approval hearing on July 30, 2020. Dkt. No. 230. At the final approval hearing, the Court directed the parties to submit an amended distribution proposal, which the parties filed on August 13, 2020. Dkt. No. 231. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the final approval motion. The Court also GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, and the Named Plaintiffs' incentive award.
A. Factual Background
Plaintiffs brought this consumer class action against Defendant Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. ("Defendant" or "Chipotle") alleging that Defendant's "non-GMO" claims about its food products were false and misleading. See generally Dkt. No. 1 ("Compl.").1 According to Plaintiffs, Chipotle consistently advertised its food products as "non-GMO" and "GMO free." Id. ¶¶ 31-40. [**3] However, these claims were purportedly false because [*592] as alleged, the meat and dairy products "are all sourced from animals that are fed with a genetically engineered or GMO derived feed," and the soft drinks contain corn syrup, a GMO. Id. ¶¶ 41-43. Plaintiffs contend that had they known of the "true character and quality of the ingredients," they would not have purchased, or would have paid less for, Chipotle's food products. Id. ¶ 49.
Based on those facts, the complaint asserted the following ten causes of action: (1) California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq.; (2) California's False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 et seq.; (3) California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.; (4) Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et seq.;2 (5) Maryland's Consumer Protection Act, MD. Code Ann. § 13-101 et seq.; (6) New York's Consumer Protection Statute, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349; (7) New York's False Advertising Law, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 350 et seq.; (8) unjust enrichment; (9) misrepresentation; and (10) declaratory relief. Id. ¶¶ 69-146.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
336 F.R.D. 588 *; 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206507 **; 108 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 556; 2020 WL 6484833
MARTIN SCHNEIDER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., Defendant.
Prior History: Schneider v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153579 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 4, 2016)
settlement, notice, class member, parties, class action, attorney's fees, incentive award, food product, damages, lodestar, costs, expenses, consumer, final approval, named plaintiff, approve, weigh, class certification, advertising, quotations, discovery, class representative, preliminary approval, cy pres, ingredients, multiplier, mediation, courts, dairy, meat