Judge Chops Down Chipotle ‘Naturally Raised’ Meat Class Action Lawsuit

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

Judge Chops Down Chipotle ‘Naturally Raised’ Meat Class Action Lawsuit

By Courtney Coren

A California federal judge on Monday denied certification in a proposed class action lawsuit that charged Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. with serving meat that was conventionally raised on occasion when “naturally raised” meat was not available. Chipotle advertises its meat as “naturally raised” on in-store menu signboards and Chipotle’s paper menu, which means that it is free of antibiotics, hormones, and raised humanely.

In his Dec. 2 ruling, U.S. District Judge Dale S. Fischer said the potential Class Members lacked cohesion, stating that “common questions do not predominate over individual issues, and the class action device is not a fair and efficient way to provide a fair opportunity for Class Members to obtain relief or for Chipotle to defend itself against claims.”

He explained that most of the allegations need to “be handled individually,” even though there are some common claims.

“Most fundamentally, the questions of when a class member ate at Chipotle, the exact location where he ate, and which meat (if any) he ate are all not subject to class treatment,” Fischer said.

In some class action lawsuits these things don’t matter, he explained, “because either the defendant or the Class Members have or could be expected to have records of the purchase of the good or service or to have retained the purchased item.”

However, in this case “neither the members nor Chipotle maintain any specific record of [the purchase] or could be expected to recall.”

Fischer also said that it the Chipotle class action lawsuit is complicated by the fact that the alleged misconduct only happened with a variety of products at different locations on different dates.

“Here it is critical because certain stores were serving certain conventional meats only at certain times,” the federal judge said. “Therefore, a Class Member needs to know with some certainty – and Chipotle should be allowed some mechanism for confirming or contesting that certainty — the date, location, and particular meat purchased.”

He explained that while some information could be obtained through credit card statement, the statements still would not include what meats were used.

The other issue is whether the Chipotle customer saw the sign that promised that the meat was “naturally raised” when conventional meat was being served, as Chipotle contends that restaurants were told to put up signs informing customers when their supply of naturally raised meat was low or gone.

Fischer also cited “issued regarding liability” as to why the class action lawsuit won’t work in this case. For one, Class Members would not be compensated appropriately as Fischer said he is very confident that people will have a hard time providing the necessary information to file a claim. There is also a fear that individuals would lie to participate in the class action settlement.

In the end, he concluded that it would result in a class action lawsuit that would be “unfair both to legitimate Class Members and to Chipotle.”

The plaintiffs are represented by John A. Girardi and V. Andre Sherman of Girardi & Keese and by Edwin Aiwazian, Arby Aiwazian and Jill J. Parker of Lawyers for Justice PC.

The Chipotle Naturally Raised Meat Class Action Lawsuit is Alan Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-05543, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

All class action and lawsuit news updates are listed in the Lawsuit News section of Top Class Actions