Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Turner v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.

United States District Court for the District of Colorado

November 20, 2018, Decided; November 20, 2018, Filed

Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-02612-JLK

Opinion

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC.'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 54(B) (ECF NO. 202) AND MOTION TO REINSTATE STAY (ECF NO. 203)

Kane, J.

Before me are Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.'s ("Chipotle") Motion for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) ("Rule 54(b) Motion"), ECF No. 202, and Chipotle's Motion to Reinstate Stay, ECF No. 203. I have reviewed the motions and the responses and replies thereto. For the reasons that follow, Chipotle's Rule 54(b) Motion (ECF No. 202) and Motion to Reinstate Stay (ECF No. 203) are DENIED.

Background

On August 3, 2018, I dismissed from this collective action approximately 2,800 Arbitration Plaintiffs because I determined they were [*3]  subject to a mandatory arbitration agreement that barred them from pursuing their wage claims in court. See Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Opt-In Plaintiffs Bound by Chipotle's Arbitration Agreement ("Dismissal Order"), ECF No. 187. In granting Chipotle's Motion to Dismiss, I declined to grant its additional request to disqualify Plaintiffs' counsel from representing the dismissed Arbitration Plaintiffs in any future proceedings. See id. at 14-15. Dissatisfied with my refusal to involve the court in the private arbitration proceedings of the dismissed plaintiffs, Chipotle appealed my August 3, 2018 Dismissal Order. The Tenth Circuit granted Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction and denied Chipotle's alternative request to return to this court to seek certification under Rule 54(b). See Order Dismissing Appeal at 3-4, Appeal No. 18-1320 (10th Cir. Oct. 1, 2018), ECF No. 200. Now, because Chipotle had never sought an entry of final judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) from this Court, it is back before me asking that I certify the Dismissal Order as a final judgement so that it may again seek appellate review of my refusal to sever the relationship between Plaintiffs' [*4]  counsel and the dismissed Arbitration Plaintiffs. See Rule 54(b) Mot. at 10. In addition, Chipotle asks me for a "stay of all proceedings related to the Dismissal Order until any and all appellate proceedings are completed." Mot. to Reinstate Stay at 2.

Discussion

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.

2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206547 *

LEAH TURNER, ARACELI GUTIERREZ, MARKEITTA FORD, JOLESSA WADE, DANYA GRANADO, BRETT CHARLES, and RUBY TSAO, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., Defendant.

Prior History: Turner v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 123 F. Supp. 3d 1300, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110933 (D. Colo., Aug. 21, 2015)

CORE TERMS

Arbitration, Plaintiffs', Reinstate, parties, final judgment, arbitration agreement, proceedings, appeals