Schneider v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 4:16-cv-02200

Plaintiffs sued Chipotle alleging its "non‑GMO" and "GMO free" product labels were false because animals were fed GMO feed and some ingredients (e.g., corn syrup) were GMO; they sought consumer‑protection and related claims on behalf of California, Maryland, and New York purchasers during Apr. 27, 2015–Jun. 30, 2016.
After motions practice, class certification, and extensive fact and expert discovery, the parties mediated and agreed to a nationwide settlement providing a $6.5 million non‑reversionary common fund.
Settlement terms: class members may submit up to 5 claims without proof (10 with proof), $4.00 per valid claim (amended from $2.00), household cap of 15 claims; uncashed checks after 120 days go to cy pres (Public Justice and Public Counsel).
Notice: the administrator ran a broad digital campaign, print notices in People and East Bay Times, and operated a settlement website; estimated reach ~72% of the targeted audience; one timely opt‑out and no timely objections to the settlement (one objection addressed fees).
Class counsel sought $1,950,000 (30% of fund) in attorneys’ fees, $636,556.28 in costs, and $5,000 each for four named plaintiffs as incentive awards.
The court granted final approval of the settlement and notice, awarded $1,950,000 in fees and $636,556.28 in costs, but denied the $5,000 incentive awards.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Final approval of the class settlement and adequacy of notice	Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate after certification and broad notice campaign	Settlement resolves claims and is fair given litigation risks	Approved: notice adequate and settlement fair under Rule 23(e)
Whether settlement amount and cy pres distribution are reasonable	$6.5M fund with $4 per claim and cy pres to consumer‑protection orgs benefits class	Defendant maintained negotiated caps and terms; settlement avoids litigation risk	Approved: amount reasonable given risks; cy pres recipients appropriate
Attorneys’ fees and lodestar cross‑check	Request $1,950,000 (30%) justified by lodestar and results	Defendant contested fee size relative to recovery	Approved: $1,950,000 (30%) awarded; negative lodestar multiplier and cross‑check supported reasonableness
Incentive awards for named plaintiffs	$5,000 each compensates service/risk	Defendant opposed additional payments beyond class recovery	Denied: court found awards unwarranted given small per‑claim recovery and lack of special risk or time warranting extra awards

Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) (standards for final approval of class settlements under Rule 23)
Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of the City and County of San Francisco, 688 F.2d 615 (9th Cir. 1982) (court must ensure settlement is not product of fraud or collusion)
Rodriguez v. West Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009) (factors for evaluating fairness of class settlements)
In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011) (review for signs of collusion and guidance on fee awards)
Laffitte v. Robert Half Int’l Inc., 1 Cal.5th 480 (Cal. 2016) (California approval of percentage‑of‑fund method and lodestar cross‑check discretion)
Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003) (standards for incentive awards and lodestar approach)
Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002) (25% benchmark for common fund fee awards)
Radcliffe v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., 715 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2013) (scrutiny of incentive awards to protect adequacy of class representatives)
Dennis v. Kellogg Co., 697 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2012) (guidance on cy pres distributions to ensure alignment with class objectives)
Silber v. Mabon, 18 F.3d 1449 (9th Cir. 1994) ("best practicable" notice standard for class actions)