throbber

`Case L:12-cv-0838AECANwe
`
`ocument 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 1 of 16
`
`FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
`Joseph A.Fitapelli
`Brian S. Schaffer
`Frank J. Mazzaferro
`475 Park Avenue South, 12" Floor
`New York, New York 10016
`Telephone:
`
`(212) 300-0375
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`MAXCIMOSCOTT on behalfof Hi
`
`similarly situated,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`CHIPOTLE MEXICANGRILL, INC.,
`
` Defendant.
`
`-against-
`
`Plaintiff Maxcimo Scott (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly
`
`Situated, as class representative, upon personal knowledgeas to himself, and upon information
`
`and belief as to other matters,alleges as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This lawsuit seeks to recover overtime compensation for Plaintiff and his similarly
`
`situated co-workers, salaried Apprentices and/or Assistant Managers (hereinafter “Apprentices”), who
`
`work or have worked at the Chipotle Mexican Grille Restaurants nationwide(collectively “Chipotle’’).
`
`2.
`
`Chipotle is a chain of Mexican style Restaurants knownforits’ natural ingredients
`
`and assembly line production. According to their website, Chipotle considers itself a “fast-
`
`casual”dining establishment, where “customers expect food quality that’s more in line with full-
`
`Service
`
`restaurants,
`
`coupled with
`
`the
`
`speed
`
`and
`
`convenience
`
`of
`
`fast
`
`food.”
`
`http://www .chipotle.com/en-us/company/about_us.aspx.
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-08333-ALC-SN Document1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 2 of 16
`
`3.
`
`According to Chipotle’s Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending on December31,
`
`2011, Chipotle operated 1,350 restaurants, employed 2,570 salaried employees and 28,370
`
`hourly employees. For the fiscal year 2011, Chipotle earned approximately $2.27 billion dollars
`
`in revenue.
`
`4.
`
`Chipotle’s restaurants are designed around the conceptof an open kitchen, where
`
`employees are constantly engaging customers and preparing meals in front of customers in an
`
`assembly line production.
`
`In fact, Chipotle states in its’ 2011 form 10-K that, “All of our
`
`restaurant employees are encouraged to interact with customers no matter their job, whether
`
`preparing food or serving customers...” Chipotle further states thatits’ “employees spend hours
`
`preparing our foodonsite.”
`
`5.
`
`At Chipotle, Apprentices are required to assist in service while on duty. Rather
`
`than managing and supervising the restaurant, Apprentices typically spend the majority of their
`
`shifts working the assembly line, filling orders for customers, grilling, operating the cash
`
`register, and preparing items for the line including salsa, guacamole, chopped vegetables and
`
`other food items.
`
`6.
`
`Regardless of the amount of hours worked, Apprentices are compensated by an
`
`average Salary starting under $40,000.00 per year and do not receive overtime compensation.In
`
`that regard, Defendants classify Apprentices as a managerial position, and thus purportedly
`
`exempt from overtime pay. However, as outlined above, an Apprentice’s primary duties are
`
`similar to those performed by hourly employees and are thus not exempt from the overtime
`
`provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq. (“FLSA”) and New York
`
`Labor Law (“NYLL”), Article 6, §§ 190 et seq., and Article 19, §§ 650 et seq.
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-08333-ALC-SN Document1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 3 of 16
`
`7.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant applied the same employmentpolicies,
`
`practices, and proceduresto all similarly situated employees at the nationwide chain of Chipotle
`
`restaurants.
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and similarly situated current and
`
`former employees whoelect to opt-in to this action pursuant to the FLSA, and specifically,
`
`the
`
`collective action provision of 29 U.S.C. § 216(b),
`
`to remedy violations of the wage-and-hour
`
`provisions of the FLSA by Defendants that have deprived Plaintiff and other similarly situated
`
`employeesoftheir lawfully earned wages.
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff also brings this action on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
`
`current and former employees pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 to remedyviolations
`
`of the NYLL, Article 6, §§ 190 et seg., and Article 19, §§ 650 et seq., and the supporting New
`
`York State Department of Laborregulations.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`Plaintiff
`
`MaxcimoScott
`
`10.
`
`MaxcimoScott (“Scott”) is an adult individual who is a resident of Bronx, New
`
`York.
`
`11.
`
`From in or around 2007 to 2009 Scott was employed by Defendant as a Crew
`
`Member at the Chipotle located at 9 Saint Marks Place, New York, New York 10003 (St.
`
`Marks”). From in or around 2009 to October 17, 2011, Scott was employed as an Apprentice at
`
`the St. Marks Chipotle. From in or around October 17, 2011 to the present, Scott has been
`
`employed as a General Managerat the Chipotle located at 55 E 8"" Street, New York, New York
`
`10003.
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-08333-ALC-SN Document1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 4 of 16
`
`12.
`
`As an Apprentice, Scott frequently performed the functions of an hourly Crew
`
`memberonthe line. Defendant knew aboutthis practice and encouragedthis practice in order to
`
`reduce labor costs.
`
`13.
`
`Scott
`
`frequently worked over 40 hours per week with a maximum of
`
`approximately 55 hours per week.
`
`14.
`
`Pursuant to Chipotle’s policy and pattern or practice, Chipotle did not pay Scott
`
`premium overtime pay when he worked as an Apprentice for their benefit in excess of 40 hours
`
`in a workweek.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`Defendant
`
`Scott is a covered employee within the meaning of the FLSA and the NYLL.
`
`A written consentform for Scott is being filed with this Class Action Complaint.
`
`Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.
`
`17.
`
`Chipotle Mexican Grill,
`
`Inc.
`
`(“Chipotle Mexican Grill”) has owned and/or
`
`operated the Chipotle restaurants during the relevantperiod.
`
`18.
`
`Chipotle Mexican Grill is a foreign business corporation organized and existing
`
`under the laws of Delaware.
`
`19.
`
`Upon information and belief, Chipotle Mexican Grill’s principal executive office
`
`is located at 1401 WynkoopStreet, Suite 500, Denver, Colorado, 80202.
`
`20.
`
`At all times relevant, Chipotle Mexican Grill has been the corporateentity listed
`
`on Plaintiff's paychecks and W-2 forms.
`
`21.
`
`Chipotle Mexican Grill is a covered employer within the meaning of the FLSA
`
`and the NYLL,and,atall times relevant, employed Plaintiff and similarly situated employees.
`
`22.
`
`At all times relevant, Chipotle Mexican Grill maintained control, oversight, and
`
`direction over Plaintiff and similarly situated employees, including timekeeping, payroll, and
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-08333-ALC-SN Document1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 5 of 16
`
`other employmentpractices that applied to them.
`
`23.|Chipotle Mexican Grill applies the same employment policies, practices, and
`
`procedures to all Apprentices at
`
`the Chipotle restaurants,
`
`including policies, practices, and
`
`procedures with respect to the payment of overtime compensation.
`
`24.
`
`Upon information and belief, at all
`
`times relevant, Chipotle Mexican Grill’s
`
`annual gross volurne of sales made or business done was notless than $500,000.00.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`25.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337
`
`and jurisdictionover Plaintiffs state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
`
`26.
`
`This Court also has jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims under the FLSA pursuant
`
`to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
`
`27.
`
`This Court is empowered to issue a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 2201 and 2202.
`
`28.
`
`Venue is proper in the Southern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims
`
`occurred in thisdistrict.
`
`COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`29.
`
`Plaintiff brings the First Cause of Action, an FLSA claim, on behalf of himself and
`
`all similarly situated persons who have worked as Apprentices at Chipotle restaurants nationwide,
`
`whoelectto opt-into this action (the “FLSA Collective”).
`
`30.
`
`Defendantis liable under the FLSA for, inter alia, failing to properly compensate
`
`Plaintiff and othersimilarly situated Apprentices.
`
`31.
`
`Consistent with Defendant’s policy and pattern orpractice, Plaintiff and the FLSA
`
`Collective were not paid premium overtime compensation when they worked beyond 40 hoursin
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-08333-ALC-SN Document1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 6 of 16
`
`a workweek.
`
`32.
`
`All of the work that Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective have performed has been
`
`assigned by Defendant, and/or Defendant has been aware ofall of the work that Plaintiff and the
`
`FLSA Collective have performed.
`
`33.
`
`As part ofits regular business practice, Defendant has intentionally, willfully, and
`
`repeatedly engaged in a pattern, practice, and/or policy of violating the FLSA with respect to
`
`Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective. This policy and pattern or practice includes,butis not limitedto:
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`including Plaintiff and the FLSA
`willfully failing to pay its employees,
`Collective, premium overtime wages for hours that they worked in excess of 40
`hours per workweek;
`
`willfully misclassifying Plaintiff and members of the FLSAcollective as exempt
`frorn the protections of the FLSA; and
`
`willfully failing to record all of the time that its employees, including Plaintiff and
`the FLSA Collective, have worked for the benefit of Defendant.
`
`34.
`
`Defendant is aware or should have been aware that federal law required them to pay
`
`Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective overtime premiumsfor hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek.
`
`35.
`
`36.
`
`37.
`
`Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective perform or performed the same primary duties.
`
`Defendant’s unlawful conduct has been widespread,repeated, and consistent.
`
`There are many similarly situated current and former Apprentices who have been
`
`underpaid in violation of the FLSA who would benefit from the issuance of a court-supervised
`
`notice of this lawsuit and the opportunity to join it. This notice should be sent to the FLSA
`
`Collective pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
`
`38.
`
`Those similarly situated employees are known to Defendant, are readily
`
`identifiable and can be located through Defendant’s records.
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-08333-ALC-SN Document1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 7 of 16
`
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`39,
`
`Plaintiff brings the Second Cause of Action, a NYLL claim, under Rule 23 of the
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of himself and a class of persons consistingof:
`
`All persons who work or have worked as an Apprentice
`and/or Assistant Manager and similar employees at
`the
`Chipotle restaurants between November 15, 2012 and the
`date of final judgmentin this matter (the “Rule 23 Class”).
`
`40.
`
`Excluded
`
`from the Rule
`
`23 Class
`
`are Defendant, Defendant’s
`
`legal
`
`representatives, officers, directors, assigns, and successors, or any individual who has, or whoat
`
`any time during the class period has had, a controlling interest in Defendant; the Judge(s) to
`
`whom this case is assigned and any memberof the Judges’ immediate family; and all persons
`
`who will submit timely and otherwise proper requests for exclusion from the Rule 23 Class.
`
`41.
`
`The members of the Rule 23 Class are so numerousthat joinder of all membersis
`
`impracticable.
`
`42.
`
`Upon information and belief,
`
`the size of the Rule 23 Class is at
`
`least 50
`
`individuals. Although the precise number of such employees is unknown,the facts on which the
`
`calculation of that number dependsare presently within the sole control of Defendant.
`
`43.
`
`Defendant has acted or has refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the
`
`Rule 23 Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory
`
`relief with respect to the Rule 23 Class as a whole.
`
`44.
`
`Commonquestions of law and fact exist as to the Rule 23 Class that predominate
`
`over any questionsonly affecting them individually andinclude, butare not limited to, the following:
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`whether Defendant violated NYLL, Articles 6 and 19, and the supporting New
`York State Department of Labor regulations;
`
`whether Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class for hours
`worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek;
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-08333-ALC-SN Document1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 8 of 16
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`(e)
`
`(f)
`
`(g)
`
`whether Defendant misclassified Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class;
`
`whether Defendantfailed to keep true and accurate time and pay recordsfor all hours
`worked by Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class, and other records required by the NYLL;
`
`whether Defendant failed to furnish Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class with an
`accurate statement of wages, hours worked, rates paid, and the gross wages as
`required by the NYLL;
`
`whether Defendant’s policy of failing to pay workers was instituted willfully or
`with reckless disregard of the law; and
`
`the nature and extent of class-wide injury and the measure of damages for those
`injuries.
`
`45.
`
`The claimsof Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the Rule 23 Class he seeks to
`
`represent. Plaintiff and all of the Rule 23 Class members work, or have worked, for Defendant
`
`as Apprentices at Chipotle. Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class members enjoy the samestatutory
`
`rights under the NYLL,including to be paid for all hours worked and to be paid overtime wages.
`
`Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class members have all sustained similar types of damagesasaresult
`
`of Defendant’sfailure to comply with the NYLL. Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class members have
`
`all been injured in that they have been uncompensated or under-compensated due to Defendant’s
`
`commonpolicies, practices, and patterns of conduct.
`
`46.
`
`Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the
`
`members ofthe Rule 23 Class. Plaintiff understands that as class representative, he assumesa
`
`fiduciary responsibility to the class to represent its interests fairly and adequately. Plaintiff
`
`recognizes that as class representative, he must represent and considerthe interests of the class
`
`just as he would represent and consider his own interests. Plaintiff understands that
`
`in
`
`decisions regarding the conductofthe litigation and its possible settlement, he must not favor
`
`his owninterests over the class. Plaintiff recognizes that any resolution of a class action must
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-08333-ALC-SN Document1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 9 of 16
`
`be in the best interest of the class. Plaintiff understands that in order to provide adequate
`
`representation, he must be informed of developments in litigation, cooperate with class
`
`counsel, and testify at deposition and/or trial. Plaintiff has retained counsel competent and
`
`experienced in complex class actions and employmentlitigation. There is no conflict between
`
`Plaintiff and the Rule 23 members.
`
`47.
`
`A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient
`
`adjudicationofthis litigation. The members of the Rule 23 Class have been damagedand are
`
`entitled to recovery as a result of Defendant’s violations of the NYLL, as well as their common
`
`and uniform policies, practices, and procedures. Although the relative damages suffered by
`
`individual Rule 23 Class members are not de minimis, such damages are small comparedto the
`
`expense andburdenof individual prosecutionofthis litigation. The individual plaintiff lacks the
`
`financial
`
`resources to conduct a thorough examination of Defendant’s timekeeping and
`
`compensation practices and to prosecute vigorously a lawsuit against Defendant to recover such
`
`damages.
`
`In addition, class litigation is superior because it will obviate the need for unduly
`
`duplicative litigation that mightresult in inconsistent judgments about Defendant’s practices.
`
`48.
`
`This action is properly maintainable as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 23(b)(3).
`
`COMMONFACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`49.
`
`Throughout his employment with Defendant, Plaintiff and the members of the
`
`FLSA Collective and the Rule 23 Class (collectively “Class Members”) consistently worked
`
`more than 40 hours per week.
`
`50.
`
`Plaintiff's duties were assigned to him by his superiors.
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-08333-ALC-SN Document1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 10 of 16
`
`51.
`
`Defendant was awarethat Plaintiff and the Class Members worked more than 40
`
`hours per workweek, yet Defendant failed to pay overtime compensation for hours worked over
`
`40 in a workweek.
`
`52.
`
`Defendant did not keep accurate records of hours worked by Plaintiff — Plaintiff's
`
`hours are not recorded on paystubs, and Plaintiff was not required to clock in or out, or otherwise
`
`record his time.
`
`53.
`
`Plaintiff and the Class Members’ primary duties were routine, non-exempt tasks
`
`including, but not limitedto:
`
`a. greeting customers;
`
`b.
`
`serving customers,
`
`c. grilling and preparing food; and
`
`d. operating the cashregister.
`
`54.
`
`Plaintiff and Class Members spent the majority of their time serving customers,
`
`working on the assemblyline, and performing the sametasks as the hourly employees.
`
`55.
`
`Plaintiff and Class Members’ duties did not differ substantially from the duties of
`
`non-exempthourly employees.
`
`56.
`
`Plaintiff and Class Members’ primary job duties as Apprentices did not include:
`
`a. Hiring;
`
`b. Firing;
`
`c. Scheduling; and
`
`d. Disciplining other employees.
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-08333-ALC-SN Documenti1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 11 of 16
`
`57.
`
`Plaintiff's primary duty was not directly related to Defendant or Defendant’s
`
`customers’ management or general business operations and did not
`
`include the exercise of
`
`discretion and independent judgmentregarding matters of significance. In that regard, Plaintiff:
`
`involved in planning Defendant’s long or short
`a. was not
`objectives;
`
`term business
`
`b. could not formulate, affect, implement or interpret Defendant’s management
`policies or operating practices;
`
`c. did not carry out major assignments that affected Defendant’s business
`operations;
`
`d. did not have authority to commit Defendant’s in matters that have significant
`financial impact; and
`
`e.
`
`could not waive or deviate from Defendant’s established policies or
`procedures without prior approval.
`
`58.
`
`Plaintiff's primary duties were manual
`
`in nature. The performance of manual
`
`labor duties occupied the majority of Scott’s working hours.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`Fair Labor Standards Act — Overtime Wages
`
`59.
`
`Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all preceding
`
`paragraphs.
`
`60.
`
`Defendant has engaged in a widespread pattern and practice of violating the
`
`FLSA,as described in this Class and Collective Action Complaint.
`
`61.
`
`Plaintiff has consented,
`
`in writing,
`
`to be a party to this action, pursuant to 29
`
`U.S.C. § 216(b).
`
`62.
`
`At all relevant times, Plaintiff and other similarly situated current and former
`
`employees were engaged in commerce and/or the production of goods for commerce within the
`
`meaning of 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a) and 207(a).
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-08333-ALC-SN Document1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 12 of 16
`
`63.
`
`The overtime wage provisions set forth in §§ 201 et seq. of the FLSA apply to
`
`Defendant.
`
`64.
`
`Defendant is an employer engaged in commerce and/or the production of goods
`
`for commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a) and 207(a).
`
`65.
`
`Atall times relevant, Plaintiff was an employee within the meaning of 29 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 203(e) and 207(a).
`
`66.
`
`Defendant has failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated current and
`
`former employees the overtime wages to which theyare entitled under the FLSA.
`
`67.
`
`Defendant’s violations of the FLSA, as described in this Class and Collective
`
`Action Complaint, have been willful and intentional. Defendant has not made a goodfaith effort
`
`to comply with the FLSA with respect to its’ compensation of Plaintiff and other similarly
`
`situated current and former employees.
`
`68.
`
`Because Defendant’s violations of the FLSA have been willful, a three-year
`
`statute of limitations applies, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 255.
`
`69,
`
`As a result of Defendant’s willful violations of the FLSA, Plaintiff and all other
`
`similarly situated employees have suffered damages by being denied overtime wages in
`
`accordance with 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq.
`
`70.
`
`Asa result of the unlawful acts of Defendant, Plaintiff and other similarly situated
`
`current and former employees have been deprived of overtime compensation and other wagesin
`
`amounts to be determined at
`
`trial, and are entitled to recover of such amounts,
`
`liquidated
`
`damages, prejudgmentinterest, attorneys’ fees, costs and other compensation pursuant to 29
`
`U.S.C. § 216(b).
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-08333-ALC-SN Document1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 13 of 16
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`New York Labor Law — Unpaid Overtime
`
`71.
`
`Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in all preceding
`
`paragraphs.
`
`72.
`
`Defendant engaged in a widespread pattern, policy, and practice of violating the
`
`NYLL,as detailed in this Class and Collective Action Complaint.
`
`73.
`
`Atall times relevant, Plaintiff and the members of the Rule 23 Class have been
`
`employees and Defendant has been their employer within the meaning of the NYLL.
`
`74,
`
`75.
`
`76.
`
`Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class are covered by the NYLL.
`
`Defendant employed Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class as an employer.
`
`Defendant has failed to pay Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class overtime wages to
`
`whichthey are entitled under the NYLLArticle 19 §§ 650 et seq., and the supporting New York
`
`State Department of Labor Regulations.
`
`77,
`
`Defendantfailed to pay Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class overtime at a wage rate of
`
`one and one-half timestheir regular rate of pay.
`
`78.
`
`Defendantfailed to keep, make, preserve, maintain, and furnish accurate records
`
`of time worked byPlaintiff and the Rule 23 Class.
`
`79,
`
`Defendant’s violations of the NYLL, as described in this Class and Collective
`
`Action Complaint, have been willful and intentional.
`
`80.
`
`Due to Defendant’s violations of the NYLL, Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class are
`
`entitled to recover from Defendant unpaid overtime, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of the
`
`action, liquidated damagesas provided for by NYLL Article 6 § 198, and pre-judgmentand post-
`
`judgmentinterest.
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-08333-ALC-SN Document1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 14 of 16
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE,Plaintiff,
`
`individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
`
`persons, respectfully requests that this Court grant the followingrelief:
`
`A.
`
`That, at the earliest possible time, Plaintiff be allowed to give notice of this
`
`collective action, or that the Court issue such notice, to all Apprentices and similarly situated
`
`employees whoarepresently, or have at any time during the three years immediately preceding
`
`the filing of this suit, up through and including the date of this Court’s issuance of court-
`
`supervised notice, worked at Chipotle. Such notice shall inform them that this civil action has
`
`been filed, of the nature of the action, and of their right to join this lawsuit if they believe they
`
`were denied proper wages;
`
`B.
`
`Unpaid overtime pay and an additional and equal amountas liquidated damages
`
`pursuant to the FLSA andthe supporting United States Department of Labor regulations;
`
`C.
`
`Certification of this case as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
`
`of Civil Procedure;
`
`D.
`
`Designation of Plaintiff as representative of the Rule 23 Class and counsel of
`
`record as Class Counsel;
`
`E.
`
`Issuance of a declaratory judgment that the practices complained of in this Class
`
`Action Complaint are unlawful under the NYLL, Article 6, §§ 190 et seg., NYLL, Article 19,
`
`§§ 650 et seq., and the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations;
`
`F.
`
`Unpaid overtime pay and liquidated damages permitted by law pursuant to the
`
`NYLL;
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`Prejudgment and post-judgmentinterest;
`
`An injunction requiring Defendantto payall statutorily required wages and cease
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-08333-ALC-SN Document1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 15 of 16
`
`the unlawful activity described herein pursuant to the NYLL;
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of the action; and
`
`Such otherrelief as this Court shall deem just and proper.
`
`Dated: New York, New York
`November15, 2012
`
`
`
`FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
`Joseph A.Fitapelli
`Brian S. Schaffer
`Frank J. Mazzaferro
`475 Park Avenue South, 12'" Floor
`New York, New York 10016
`Telephone: (212) 300-0375
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff and
`the Putative Class
`
`-15-
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-08333-ALC-SN Document1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 16 of 16
`
`FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT CONSENT
`
`I consentto be a party plaintiff in a lawsuit against Chipotle and/orrelated entities
`1.
`and individuals in order to seek redress for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, pursuant
`to 29 U.S.C.§ 216(b).
`
`I hereby designate Fitapelli &
`By signing and returning this consent form,
`2.
`Schaffer, LLP (“the Firm”) to represent me and make decisions on my behalf concerning the
`litigation and any settlement.
`I understand that reasonable costs expended on mybehalf will be
`deducted from anysettlement or judgment amount ona prorata basis amongall other plaintiffs.
`I understandthat the Firm will petition the Court for attorney’s fees from any settlement or
`judgment in the amountofthe greater of: (1) the “lodestar” amount, calculated by multiplying
`reasonable hourly rates by the number of hours expended on the lawsuit, or (2) 1/3 of the gross
`settlement or judgment amount.
`I agree to be bound by any adjudication of this action by a
`court, whetherit is favorable or unfavorable.
`
`7
`
`Signature
`Masry.
`
`Full Legal Name(Print
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket