Turley v. Chipotle Services CA1/4

Filed 6/14/22 Turley v. Chipotle Services CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

TANIKA TURLEY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHIPOTLE SERVICES, LLC, A162513 Defendant and Respondent; (City & County of San Francisco JOSH BARBER, Super. Ct. No. CGC-15-544936) Intervener and Appellant.

Josh Barber appeals an order denying his request to intervene in this action in which Tanika Turley settled, on behalf of a class of nonexempt employees, various causes of action for violations of the Labor Code, as well as a related cause of action under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) (Lab. Code,1 § 2698 et seq.), against Chipotle Services, LLC (Chipotle). Barber had filed a similar putative class action against Chipotle on behalf of nonexempt managerial employees. Turley and Chipotle argue, among other things, that the appeal is moot in light of the finality of the judgment entered in this action and the distribution and acceptance of all

1 All statutory references are to the Labor Code unless otherwise noted.

1

settlement funds by the state and class members. We agree and, accordingly, shall dismiss the appeal.2 Background In March 2015, Turley, a former nonexempt employee of Chipotle, filed a class action complaint against Chipotle in San Francisco County Superior Court on behalf of a putative class of all nonexempt California employees (the Turley action). As amended in July 2015, the complaint in this action alleged seven causes of action: (1) failure to make timely payment of wages (§§ 201– 203); (2) failure to provide compliant wage statements (§ 226, subd. (a)); (3) failure to provide proper response to document request (§ 226, subds. (b), (c) & (f)); (4) failure to provide proper rest breaks (§ 226.7); (5) failure to provide proper meal breaks (§ 226.7); (6) disgorgement of profits and injunction under the unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.); and (7) a PAGA claim for civil penalties. In July 2016, Barber, a former nonexempt managerial employee of Chipotle, filed a class action complaint against Chipotle in Orange County on behalf of a putative class of nonexempt managerial employees in California. As amended, Barber’s complaint alleged nine causes of action: (1) failure to pay all regular and overtime wages (§§ 510, 1194, 1198); (2) failure to pay minimum wages (§§ 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1197.1); (3) failure to provide meal periods (§§ 226.7, 512); (4) failure to provide rest periods (§ 226.7); (5) failure to provide accurate wage statements (§§ 226, 1174–1175); (6) failure to pay all wages due upon ending of employment (§§ 201–203); (7) failure to reimburse work expenses (§ 2802); (8) violation of the unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.); and (9) civil penalties under PAGA.