Contempt Order Against NJ Firm in Chipotle Case Reversed By US Appeals Court
The appeals panel said the judge below had no authority to hold New Jersey's Green Savits, or fellow plaintiffs firms Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll and Outten & Golden, in contempt in the Chipotle labor case.
July 03, 2019 at 02:00 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Texas Lawyer
A federal appeals panel on July 2 voided a Texas trial judge's order that said three plaintiffs firms were in contempt for allegedly violating the nationwide injunction blocking enforcement of an Obama-era U.S. Labor Department rule.
U.S. District Judge Amos Mazzant of the Eastern District of Texas said the firms—Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, Outten & Golden, and New Jersey's Green Savits—violated the injunction when they brought a wage-and-hour suit in New Jersey federal court. Mazzant's injunction, issued against the Labor Department, had earlier paused a rule that would have made millions of more workers eligible for overtime compensation.
“This appeal concerns the district court's extraordinary and concededly unprecedented use of the contempt power to dictate the legal arguments that a stranger to that court may advance in another federal court,” a Jenner & Block team argued on behalf of the plaintiffs firms in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit last year.
The Fifth Circuit panel on July 2 unanimously concluded Mazzant did not have authority to hold the firms, and their client, in contempt.
In the New Jersey court, the firms had sued Chipotle Mexican Grill in a private civil action. The suit, filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New Jersey state law alleged Mazzant's injunction had not stopped the effective date of the Labor Department overtime rule. The plaintiffs also argued they were not parties to the injunction.
Chipotle's lawyers at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Messner Reeves and Cantey Hanger urged Mazzant to hold the firms in contempt. The Sheppard Mullin team said the suit in New Jersey against Chipotle represented a “dismissive attitude” toward Mazzant's injunction.
Mazzant determined the three law firms “acted in privity” with the Labor Department—that is, the firms and the agency, with interests aligned, were both bound by the injunction. The plaintiffs firms “sued to enforce the final rule in direct violation of the court's order,” Mazzant said. “In doing so, they recklessly disregarded a duty owed to the court—the long-standing and elementary duty to obey its orders, including a nationwide injunction.”
The appeals panel said Mazzant mistakenly concluded the firms were in “privity” with the Labor Department. The law firms “submitted uncontradicted declarations attesting that they had not in any way participated, coordinated, or acted in concert with the federal defendants” to violate Mazzant's injunction, the appeals court said.
More broadly, the appeals court said, “Chipotle's theory that the DOL represents every worker's legal interests through its enforcement of the FLSA so as to bind every worker in the United States to an injunction where the DOL is the only bound party lacks authoritative support.”
The court's ruling is posted below:
[falcon-embed src="embed_1"]
Read more:
Plaintiffs Firms Call Texas Federal Judge's Contempt Order 'Profoundly Troubling'
Chipotle Wants Lawyers in Overtime Suit Sanctioned for Contempt
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBankruptcy Judge Clears Path for Recovery in High-Profile Crypto Failure
3 minute readGibbons Reps Asylum Seekers in $6M Suit Over 2018 ‘Inhumane’ Immigration Policy
3 minute readNJ Supreme Court Clarifies Affidavit of Merit Requirement for Doctor With Dual Specialties
4 minute readJudge Denies Retrial Bid by Ex-U.S. Sen. Menendez Over Evidentiary Error
Trending Stories
- 1New York-Based Skadden Team Joins White & Case Group in Mexico City for Citigroup Demerger
- 2No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 3Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 4Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
- 5Lawyers' Phones Are Ringing: What Should Employers Do If ICE Raids Their Business?
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250