`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
`
`