This case was last updated from U.S. District Courts on 03/19/2023 at 07:23:16 (UTC).

Sandra Diaz v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.

Case Summary

On January 18, 2023, Sandra Diaz (“Plaintiff”), represented by Frank S. Hedin of Hedin Hall LLP, filed a personal injury lawsuit against Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (“Defendant”), seeking injunctive relief and damages for alleged violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Sales Act. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, with Judges David O. Carter and John D. Early presiding. 

In the complaint, the plaintiff claimed, “Since July 1, 2021, Plaintiff has received, at the 9446 Number, at least one text message that Defendant made or knowingly allowed another person to make on its behalf.”

Plaintiff alleged, “At the time the subject text messages were made to and received by Plaintiff, Plaintiff was ‘an actual or prospective purchaser, lessee, or recipient of consumer goods or services.’”

The plaintiff then alleged, “Accordingly, the text messages that Defendant made or knowingly allowed another person to make on its behalf to Plaintiff’s 9446 Number constituted ‘telephonic sales calls.’”

Additionally, the plaintiff alleged, “Each text message sent by or on behalf of Defendant to Plaintiff’s 9446 Number originated from the telephone number 88822, which is number leased or owned by or on behalf of Defendant that Defendant uses or knowingly allows another person to use to transmit telephonic sales calls, in the form of text messages, to consumers in an automated and en masse fashion.”

Plaintiff also alleged, “Because Plaintiff’s cellular phone alerts her whenever she receives a text message, each telephonic sales call by or on behalf of Defendant to Plaintiff’s 9446 Number invaded Plaintiff’s privacy and intruded upon Plaintiff’s seclusion upon receipt.”

The plaintiff further alleged that “Plaintiff has never provided her prior ‘prior express written consent’ to Defendant or any other party acting on Defendant’s behalf to authorize the subject telephonic sales calls to the 9446 Number by means of an ‘automated system for the selection or dialing of telephone numbers’ within the meaning of Fla. Stat. § 501.059(8)(a).”

Plaintiff presented a claim for relief for alleged violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Sales Act. 

In the prayer for relief, the plaintiff requested a judgment for injunctive and declaratory relief as well as an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. 

This is a summary of a legal complaint. All statements, claims, and allegations listed herein reflect the position of the plaintiff only and do not represent the position of UniCourt. Additionally, this case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the current status of this case. To view the latest case updates and court documents, please sign up for a UniCourt account.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    8:23-CV-00106

  • Filing Date:

    01/18/2023

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

David O. Carter

Referral Judge

John D. Early

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Sandra Diaz

Defendant

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

Armen Zohrabian

Frank S Hedin

Defendant Attorney

David Brian Farkas

 

Court Documents

#1

(#1) COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-34636003 - Fee: $402, filed by plaintiff Sandra Diaz. (Attorney Frank S Hedin added to party Sandra Diaz(pty:pla))(Hedin, Frank) (Entered: 01/18/2023)

#2

(#2) CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Sandra Diaz. (Hedin, Frank) (Entered: 01/18/2023)

#3

(#3) Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by plaintiff Sandra Diaz. (Hedin, Frank) (Entered: 01/18/2023)

#4

(#4) CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by plaintiff Sandra Diaz, identifying Sandra Diaz, Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., Hedin Hall LLP, Frank Hedin. (Hedin, Frank) (Entered: 01/18/2023)

#5

(#5) NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge David O. Carter and Magistrate Judge John D. Early. (ghap) (Entered: 01/18/2023)

#6

(#6) NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (ghap) (Entered: 01/18/2023)

#7

(#7) Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (ghap) (Entered: 01/18/2023)

#8

(#8) 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (ghap) (Entered: 01/18/2023)

#9

(#9) PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Sandra Diaz, upon Defendant Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. served on 1/20/2023, answer due 2/10/2023. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon registered agent in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by service on a domestic corporation, unincorporated association, or public entity.Original Summons returned. (Hedin, Frank) (Entered: 01/24/2023)

#10

(#10) INITIAL STANDING ORDER FOLLOWING ASSIGNMENT OF CIVIL CASE TO JUDGE CARTER. (kdu) (Entered: 01/27/2023)

#11

(#11) NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Armen Zohrabian on behalf of Plaintiff Sandra Diaz (Attorney Armen Zohrabian added to party Sandra Diaz(pty:pla))(Zohrabian, Armen) (Entered: 02/06/2023)

#12

(#12) STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. answer now due 3/10/2023, filed by Defendant Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc..(Attorney David Brian Farkas added to party Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.(pty:dft))(Farkas, David) (Entered: 02/10/2023)

#13

(#13) Second STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Defendant Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Farkas, David) (Entered: 03/06/2023)

13 #1

Proposed Order

#14

(#14) ORDER GRANTING SECOND STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT by Judge David O. Carter. The Court finds good cause exists for granting the stipulation. THEREFORE, Defendants shall have to and including March 31, 2023, to respond to the Complaint. RE: Stipulation Extending Time to Answer (30 days or less) #13 . (aco) (Entered: 03/13/2023)

3 More Documents Available
View All Documents

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/13/2023
  • View Court Documents

  • Docket(#14) ORDER GRANTING SECOND STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT by Judge David O. Carter. The Court finds good cause exists for granting the stipulation. THEREFORE, Defendants shall have to and including March 31, 2023, to respond to the Complaint. RE: Stipulation Extending Time to Answer (30 days or less) #13 . (aco) (Entered: 03/13/2023)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/06/2023
  • View Court Documents

  • Docket(#13) Second STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Defendant Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Farkas, David) (Entered: 03/06/2023)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/10/2023
  • View Court Documents

  • Docket(#12) STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. answer now due 3/10/2023, filed by Defendant Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc..(Attorney David Brian Farkas added to party Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.(pty:dft))(Farkas, David) (Entered: 02/10/2023)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/06/2023
  • View Court Documents

  • Docket(#11) NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Armen Zohrabian on behalf of Plaintiff Sandra Diaz (Attorney Armen Zohrabian added to party Sandra Diaz(pty:pla))(Zohrabian, Armen) (Entered: 02/06/2023)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/27/2023
  • View Court Documents

  • Docket(#10) INITIAL STANDING ORDER FOLLOWING ASSIGNMENT OF CIVIL CASE TO JUDGE CARTER. (kdu) (Entered: 01/27/2023)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/24/2023
  • View Court Documents

  • Docket(#9) PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Sandra Diaz, upon Defendant Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. served on 1/20/2023, answer due 2/10/2023. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon registered agent in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by service on a domestic corporation, unincorporated association, or public entity.Original Summons returned. (Hedin, Frank) (Entered: 01/24/2023)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/18/2023
  • View Court Documents

  • Docket(#8) 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (ghap) (Entered: 01/18/2023)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/18/2023
  • View Court Documents

  • Docket(#7) Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (ghap) (Entered: 01/18/2023)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/18/2023
  • View Court Documents

  • Docket(#6) NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (ghap) (Entered: 01/18/2023)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/18/2023
  • View Court Documents

  • Docket(#5) NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge David O. Carter and Magistrate Judge John D. Early. (ghap) (Entered: 01/18/2023)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/18/2023
  • View Court Documents

  • Docket(#4) CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by plaintiff Sandra Diaz, identifying Sandra Diaz, Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., Hedin Hall LLP, Frank Hedin. (Hedin, Frank) (Entered: 01/18/2023)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/18/2023
  • View Court Documents

  • Docket(#3) Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by plaintiff Sandra Diaz. (Hedin, Frank) (Entered: 01/18/2023)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/18/2023
  • View Court Documents

  • Docket(#2) CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Sandra Diaz. (Hedin, Frank) (Entered: 01/18/2023)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/18/2023
  • View Court Documents

  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-34636003 - Fee: $402, filed by plaintiff Sandra Diaz. (Attorney Frank S Hedin added to party Sandra Diaz(pty:pla))(Hedin, Frank) (Entered: 01/18/2023)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Why is this public record being published online?

UniCourt uses cookies to improve your online experience, for more information please see our Privacy Policy. By continuing to use this website, you agree to UniCourt’s General Disclaimer, Terms of Service, Cancellation and Refund Policy, Privacy Policy, and Public Records Policy. If you do not agree with these terms, then do not use our website and/or services.