Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Scott v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

April 15, 2016, Decided; April 15, 2016, Filed

12-CV-08333 (ALC)(SN)

Opinion

 [*38]  OPINION & ORDER

SARAH NETBURN, United States Magistrate Judge:

The plaintiff and class representative Maxcimo Scott filed a nationwide class and collective action complaint on November 15, 2012, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq. ("FLSA" or  [*39]  the "Act"), and the [**17]  New York Minimum Wage Act, N.Y. Lab. Law, art. 6 §§ 190, et seq., art 19 §§ 650, et seq. ("NYLL"), against the defendants Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. and Chipotle Services, LLC (together "Chipotle"). Later amendments to the complaint added class action claims under Missouri, Colorado, Washington, Illinois and North Carolina law. The plaintiffs—salaried "apprentices" employed or formerly employed by Chipotle restaurants nationwide—allege primarily that Chipotle did not pay them overtime and spread-of-hours compensation as required by federal or state law. On June 20, 2013, the Honorable Andrew L. Carter, Jr. conditionally certified the plaintiffs' collective action.

Following the close of expert discovery, the defendants filed a motion to strike portions of the expert reports submitted by plaintiffs' experts John A. Gordon and Dr. Phillip Johnson. On the same day, the plaintiffs filed a motion to strike portions of the rebuttal report submitted by Chipotle's expert Robert W. Crandall.

The defendants' motion to strike portions of Mr. Gordon's report is GRANTED with respect to the parts of his report that impute motives to the defendants and where Mr. Gordon proposes to testify about the actual duties and work performed [**18]  by apprentices, but DENIED on all other grounds. The defendants' motion to strike Dr. Johnson's testimony regarding potential subclasses of plaintiffs is GRANTED, but defendants' remaining objections to Dr. Johnson's testimony are DENIED. The plaintiffs' motion to strike portions of Mr. Crandall's testimony is GRANTED to the extent he impermissibly testifies to legal argument or legal conclusions, and with respect to his use of benefits data in his hourly rate calculation, but DENIED with respect to all other grounds.

I. The Parties' Expert Reports

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

315 F.R.D. 33 *; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51341 **; 100 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (Callaghan) 201

MAXCIMO SCOTT and JAY ENSOR, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, -against- CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC. and CHIPOTLE SERVICES, LLC, Defendants.

Prior History: Ensor v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146213 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 8, 2013)

CORE TERMS

apprentices, expert testimony, plaintiffs', hourly rate, calculations, restaurant, methodology, employees, rebuttal, reliable, declarations, portions, effective, subclasses, salaried, staffing, benefits, general manager, deposition, customer, class certification, non-exempt, scheduling, Exhibits, charts, primary duty, presentation, variations, experiences, performing