From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Antoninetti v. Chipotle Mexican Grill

United States District Court SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 21, 2012
CASE NUMBER: 05CV1660-BTM(WMC) (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2012)

Summary

awarding damages under Cal. Civ. Code § 54.3 for each "bona fide" visit to the restaurant but denying damages for visits conducted for the purpose of gathering evidence for litigation

Summary of this case from Johnson v. Gallup & Whalen Santa Maria

Opinion

CASE NUMBER: 05CV1660-BTM(WMC)

03-21-2012

Maurizio Antoninetti and Livia Antoninetti v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc and Does 1 through 10


JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

[] Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

[×] Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Judgment is in favor of Plaintiff and against the Defendant in the amount of $5,000 in damages.

_________________

W. Samuel Hamrick, Jr.

Clerk

E Silvas

(By) Deputy Clerk


Summaries of

Antoninetti v. Chipotle Mexican Grill

United States District Court SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 21, 2012
CASE NUMBER: 05CV1660-BTM(WMC) (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2012)

awarding damages under Cal. Civ. Code § 54.3 for each "bona fide" visit to the restaurant but denying damages for visits conducted for the purpose of gathering evidence for litigation

Summary of this case from Johnson v. Gallup & Whalen Santa Maria
Case details for

Antoninetti v. Chipotle Mexican Grill

Case Details

Full title:Maurizio Antoninetti and Livia Antoninetti v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc…

Court:United States District Court SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Mar 21, 2012

Citations

CASE NUMBER: 05CV1660-BTM(WMC) (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2012)

Citing Cases

Johnson v. Gallup & Whalen Santa Maria

The Court also questions whether plaintiff was visiting the Restaurant solely for litigation-related…

Gilbert v. 7-Eleven, Inc.

19. Defendant argues that a plaintiff may not recover damages under the Unruh Act where, as here, his visit…