Case 1:17-cv-01760-STV Document 1 Filed 07/20/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 24

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF COLORADO

)
ELIZABETH KELLEY, Individually and ) Case No.
On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, )
) COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF
Plaintiff, ) THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS
)
v. ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
)
)
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., M. )
STEVEN ELLS, MONTGOMERY F. )
MORAN and JOHN R. HARTUNG, )
)
)
Defendants. )

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Elizabeth Kelley (Plaintiff), individually and on behalf of all other persons

similarly situated, by her undersigned attorneys, for her complaint against Defendants, alleges

the following based upon personal knowledge as to herself and her own acts, and information

and belief as to all other matters, based upon, inter alia, the investigation conducted by and

through her attorneys, which included, among other things, a review of the Defendants public

documents, conference calls and announcements made by Defendants, United States Securities

and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings, wire and press releases published by and regarding

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (Chipotle or the Company), analysts reports and advisories

about the Company, and information readily obtainable on the Internet. Plaintiff believes that

substantial evidentiary support will exist for the allegations set forth herein after a reasonable

opportunity for discovery.

1
Case 1:17-cv-01760-STV Document 1 Filed 07/20/17 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 24

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all

persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Chipotle securities between

February 5, 2016 and July 19, 2017, both dates inclusive (the Class Period), seeking to recover

damages caused by Defendants violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies

under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and

Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials.

2. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. owns and operates quick-serve Mexican restaurants.

The Company operates restaurants throughout the United States.

3. Founded in 1993, the Company is headquartered in Denver, Colorado. Chipotles

shares trade on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) under the ticker symbol CMG.

4. During the week of August 18, 2015, approximately 100 patrons and employees

of a Chipotle restaurant in Simi Valley, California became ill. On September 4, 2015, the

Ventura County Environmental Health Division announced that the illnesses were a norovirus

outbreak. Health inspectors said that the restaurant in question contained dirty and inoperative

equipment, equipment directly linked to the sewer, and other sanitary and health violations.

5. Between August 19 and September 3, 2015, approximately 64 people fell ill after

dining at Chipotle restaurants in Minnesota. On September 17, 2015, the Minnesota Department

of Health announced that the illnesses were salmonella linked to tomatoes consumed at 22

Chipotle locations. The affected restaurants changed tomato suppliers but did not close.

6. On or around November 1, 2015, Chipotle closed all of its restaurants in Portland,

Oregon and Seattle, Washington, following reports of approximately 20 cases of E. coli by

Chipotle patrons.

2
Case 1:17-cv-01760-STV Document 1 Filed 07/20/17 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 24

7. Beginning on or around December 2, 2015, more than 140 Boston College

students fell ill after dining at a Chipotle restaurant in Brighton, Massachusetts. On December 9,

2015, health officials confirmed that the students had contracted norovirus.

8. On January 6, 2016, pre-market, Chipotle announced that the company was

served in December 2015 with a federal grand jury subpoena as part of a criminal investigation

tied to the previous summers norovirus outbreak at the Companys restaurant in Simi Valley,

conducted by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of California in conjunction with

the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

9. The foregoing incidents exposed the fact that Chipotles quality controls were not

in compliance with applicable consumer and workplace safety regulations, and were inadequate

to safeguard consumer and employee health. Facing a sharp drop-off in sales, Chipotle

responded with widely publicized measures that the Company touted as improvements to its food

safety protocols. On February 8, 2016, the Company closed all of its restaurants for several

hours for an all-staff meeting regarding food safety. In addition, Chipotle hired a new head of

food safety who implemented a number of changes to policies at the Companys restaurantsfor

example, requiring all employees to wash their hands every half hour, mandating that two

employees verified that certain ingredients had been immersed in hot water for at least five

seconds to kill germs, and using Pascalization to pre-treat food ingredients. By touting these

measures, along with free food promotions and increased advertising, Chipotle aimed to restore

customer confidence in the safety of its food.

10. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading

statements regarding the Companys business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically,

Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Chipotles

3
Case 1:17-cv-01760-STV Document 1 Filed 07/20/17 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 24

purported improvements in its restaurants food safety policies were inadequate; (ii) accordingly,

Chipotles quality controls were still not in compliance with applicable consumer and workplace

safety regulations; (iii) in turn, Chipotles quality controls remained inadequate to safeguard

consumer and employee health; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Chipotles public statements

were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

11. On July 18, 2017, media outlets reported that Chipotle had closed a restaurant in

Sterling, Virginia due to a suspected norovirus outbreak. According to Business Insider, citing

information from iwaspoisoned.com, a website on which consumers document suspected

incidents of foodborne illness, at least 13 customers fell ill after eating at the Chipotle restaurant

in question between July 14 and July 15. The Business Insider article further stated that

customers who fell sick after eating at the restaurant reported vomiting violently, fevers,

violent stomach cramps, and dizziness for several days.

12. On this news, Chipotles share price fell $17.02, or 4.34%, to close at $374.98 on

July 18, 2017.

13. On July 20, 2017, The Wall Street Journal published an article entitled Over 100

Report Being Sickened at Virginia Chipotle, disclosing that the number of reports of illness

associated with the restaurant-chain continue to rise. The article stated, in relevant part:

Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. reopened the location it temporarily closed this week
in Sterling, Va. after learning of a small number of customers who complained of
getting sick after eating there.

But its latest food safety incident may be worse than expected, as the number of
reports of illness associated with that store last week continue to rise.

Chipotle closed the Sterling location on Monday for a thorough sanitization

after learning of anonymous complaints posted on iwaspoisoned.com, saying it
suspected the culprit was norovirus, a common virus that can be spread through
food that has been handled by people who are sick. The location reopened on
Wednesday.

4
Case 1:17-cv-01760-STV Document 1 Filed 07/20/17 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 24

As of late Wednesday night, Patrick Quade, the founder of the food poisoning
website, said the site had received reports of 133 people sickened at the Sterling
Chipotle.

We know that maintaining the highest level of safety in all of our restaurants is
incumbent upon us. I made a commitment on behalf of Chipotle to make our
restaurants the safest place to eat, and I am confident in the programs and
procedures we have implemented, Chipotle founder and Chief Executive Steve
Ells said in a statement, referring to the many changes Chipotle has made to its
food-safety system in the last two years.

On Tuesday, Jim Marsden, Chipotles executive director of food safety, said:

Norovirus does not come from our food supply, and it is safe to eat at Chipotle.

Chipotle is working with the local health department, which is investigating the
cause.

(Emphasis added.)

14. On that same day, Reuters published an article entitled Chipotle Virginia

customer tested positive for norovirus official, reporting that a county health department

official has confirmed norovirus in a customer who ate at the Virginia Chipotle Mexican Grill

Inc. restaurant.

15. Later in the day, CNBC published an article entitled Rodents reportedly fall from

ceiling of Dallas Chipotle, reporting that rodents were spotted at a Dallas-area Chipotle on July

19, 2017. According to the article, diners captured the incident inside the restaurant on video,

which shows rodents crawling around the floor and one climbing up the wall, and with

customers claiming the rodents were falling from the ceiling.

16. On these disclosures, Chipotles share price fell $16.78, or 4.5%, to close at

$356.05 on July 20, 2017.

17. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous

decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have

suffered significant losses and damages.

5
Case 1:17-cv-01760-STV Document 1 Filed 07/20/17 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 24

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

18. The claims asserted herein arise under and pursuant to 10(b) and 20(a) of the

Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78j(b) and 78t(a)) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the

SEC (17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5).

19. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28

U.S.C. 1331 and 1337, and Section 27 of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78aa.

20. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 27 of the Exchange Act and 28

U.S.C. 1391(b), as the Companys principal executive offices are located within this District.

21. In connection with the acts, conduct and other wrongs alleged in this Complaint,

Defendants, directly or indirectly, used the means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce,

including but not limited to, the United States mail, interstate telephone communications and the

facilities of the national securities exchange.

PARTIES

22. Plaintiff, as set forth in the attached Certification, acquired Chipotle securities at

artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation of the

alleged corrective disclosures.

23. Defendant Chipotle is incorporated in Delaware, and the Companys principal

executive offices are located at 1401 Wynkoop Street, Suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202.

Chipotles common stock trades on the NYSE under the ticker symbol CMG.

24. Defendant M. Steven Ells (Ells) served as the Companys Co-Chief Executive

Officer (CEO) with Defendant Montgomery F. Moran (Moran) from 2009 until December

2016, and as sole CEO since December 2016.

6
Case 1:17-cv-01760-STV Document 1 Filed 07/20/17 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 24

25. Defendant Moran served as the Companys Co-CEO with Defendant Ells from

2009 until December 12, 2016.

26. Defendant John R. Hartung (Hartung) has served at all relevant times as the

Companys Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer.

27. The Defendants referenced above in 24-26 are sometimes referred to herein as

the Individual Defendants.

SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS

Background

28. Chipotle owns and operates quick-serve Mexican restaurants. The Company

operates restaurants throughout the United States.

29. During the week of August 18, 2015, approximately 100 patrons and employees

of a Chipotle restaurant in Simi Valley, California became ill. On September 4, 2015, the

Ventura County Environmental Health Division announced that the illnesses were a norovirus

outbreak. Health inspectors said that the restaurant in question contained dirty and inoperative

equipment, equipment directly linked to the sewer, and other sanitary and health violations.

30. Between August 19 and September 3, 2015, approximately 64 people fell ill after

dining at Chipotle restaurants in Minnesota. On September 17, 2015, the Minnesota Department

of Health announced that the illnesses were salmonella linked to tomatoes consumed at 22

Chipotle locations. The affected restaurants changed tomato suppliers but did not close.

31. On or around November 1, 2015, Chipotle closed all of its restaurants in Portland,

Oregon and Seattle, Washington, following reports of approximately 20 cases of E. coli by

Chipotle patrons.

7
Case 1:17-cv-01760-STV Document 1 Filed 07/20/17 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 24

32. Beginning on or around December 2, 2015, more than 140 Boston College

students fell ill after dining at a Chipotle restaurant in Brighton, Massachusetts. On December 9,

2015, health officials confirmed that the students had contracted norovirus.

33. On January 6, 2016, pre-market, Chipotle announced that the company was

served in December 2015 with a federal grand jury subpoena as part of a criminal investigation

tied to the previous summers norovirus outbreak at the Companys restaurant in Simi Valley,

conducted by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of California in conjunction with

the FDA.

34. The foregoing incidents exposed the fact that Chipotles quality controls were not

in compliance with applicable consumer and workplace safety regulations, and were inadequate

to safeguard consumer and employee health. Facing a sharp drop-off in sales, Chipotle

responded with widely publicized measures that the Company touted as improvements to its food

safety protocols. On February 8, 2016, the Company closed all of its restaurants for several

hours for an all-staff meeting regarding food safety. In addition, Chipotle hired a new head of

food safety who implemented a number of changes to policies at the Companys restaurantsfor

example, requiring all employees to wash their hands every half hour, mandating that two

employees verified that certain ingredients had been immersed in hot water for at least five

seconds to kill germs, and using Pascalization to pre-treat food ingredients. By touting these

measures, along with free food promotions and increased advertising, Chipotle aimed to restore

customer confidence in the safety of its food.

Materially False and Misleading Statements Issued During the Class Period

35. The Class Period begins on February 5, 2016, when Chipotle filed an annual

report on Form 10-K with the SEC, announcing the Companys financial and operating results

8
Case 1:17-cv-01760-STV Document 1 Filed 07/20/17 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 24

for the quarter and fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 (the 2015 10-K). For the quarter,

Chipotle reported net income of $67.87 million, or $2.17 per diluted share, on revenue of

$997.51 million, compared to net income of $121.23 million, or $3.84 per diluted share, on

revenue of $1.06 billion for the same period in the prior year. For fiscal year 2015, Chipotle

reported net income of $475.60 million, or $15.10 per diluted share, on revenue of $4.5 billion,

compared to net income of $445.37 million, or $14.13 per diluted share, on revenue of $4.1

billion for fiscal year 2014.

36. In the 2015 10-K, the Company stated, in relevant part:

Quality Assurance and Food Safety. We are committed to serving safe, high
quality food to our customers. Quality and food safety measures are found
throughout our supply chain, from the farms that supply our food all the way
through to our front line. We have established close relationships with some of
the top suppliers in the industry, and we actively maintain a limited list of
approved suppliers from whom our distributors must purchase. Our quality
assurance department establishes and monitors our quality and food safety
programs for our supply chain. Our training, operations, and risk management
departments develop and implement operating standards for food quality,
preparation, cleanliness and safety in the restaurants. Our food safety programs
are also designed to ensure that we comply with applicable federal, state and local
food safety regulations.

***

Using the assistance of highly respected experts we performed a review of the

ingredients we use, with a goal of designing an industry-leading food safety
program. Components of the new program include DNA-based testing of many
ingredients designed to ensure the quality and safety of ingredients before they are
shipped to our restaurants, changes to food preparation and food handling
practices, including washing and cutting some produce items (such as tomatoes
and romaine lettuce) in central kitchens, blanching of some produce items
(including avocados, onions, jalapenos and citrus) in our restaurants before
cutting them, and new protocols for marinating meats. We are also working to
enhance our internal controls surrounding food safety by utilizing the Food and
Drug Administrations Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP)
management system. Additionally, we are focused on internal training programs
to ensure that all employees thoroughly understand our high standards for food
safety and food handling, and we offer paid sick leave to employees to reduce
incentives for employees to work while sick. These and other enhancements

9
Case 1:17-cv-01760-STV Document 1 Filed 07/20/17 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 24

underscore our commitment to becoming a leader in food safety while we

continue to serve high quality food that our customers love.

***

As a result of the food safety incidents associated with our restaurants during
2015, we have implemented a number of enhancements to our food safety
protocols, and intend to make additional enhancements, to ensure that our food is
as safe as it can be. Many of our new procedures, which go beyond the industry-
standard food safety practices that we were previously following, will increase the
cost of some ingredients or the amount of labor required to prepare and serve our
food. If we arent able to increase sales to offset the increased costs resulting
from these changes, our margins will fall well short of levels we have historically
achieved. Even if we were to restore sales to levels we were achieving prior to
the food safety incidents, the increased costs from these changes will result in
lower margins than we were able to achieve in the past.

(Emphasis added.)

37. The 2015 10-K contained signed certifications pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley

Act of 2002 (SOX) by the Individual Defendants, stating that the financial information

contained in the 2015 10-K was accurate and disclosed any material changes to the Companys

internal control over financial reporting.

38. On April 27, 2016 Chipotle filed a quarterly report on Form 10-Q with the SEC,

announcing the Companys financial and operating results for the quarter ended March 31, 2016

(the Q1 2016 10-Q). For the quarter, Chipotle reported a net loss of $26.43 million, or $0.88

per diluted share, on revenue of $834.46 million, compared to net income of $122.64 million, or

$3.88 per diluted share, on revenue of $1.08 billion for the same period in the prior year.

39. The Q1 2016 10-Q contained signed certifications pursuant to SOX by the

Individual Defendants, stating that the financial information contained in the Q1 2016 10-Q was

accurate and disclosed any material changes to the Companys internal control over financial

reporting.

10
Case 1:17-cv-01760-STV Document 1 Filed 07/20/17 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 24

40. On July 22, 2016, Chipotle filed a quarterly report on Form 10-Q with the SEC,

announcing the Companys financial and operating results for the quarter ended June 30, 2016

(the Q2 2016 10-Q). For the quarter, Chipotle reported net income of $25.60 million, or $0.87

per diluted share, on revenue of $998.38 million, compared to net income of $140.20 million, or

$4.45 per diluted share, on revenue of $1.19 billion for the same period in the prior year.

41. The Q2 2016 10-Q contained signed certifications pursuant to SOX by the

Individual Defendants, stating that the financial information contained in the Q2 2016 10-Q was

accurate and disclosed any material changes to the Companys internal control over financial

reporting.

42. On October 26, 2016, Chipotle filed a quarterly report on Form 10-Q with the

SEC, announcing the Companys financial and operating results for the quarter ended September

30, 2016 (the Q3 2016 10-Q). For the quarter, Chipotle reported net income of $7.80 million,

or $0.27 per diluted share, on revenue of $1.03 billion, compared to net income of $144.88

million, or $4.59 per diluted share, on revenue of $1.21 billion for the same period in the prior

year.

43. The Q3 2016 10-Q contained signed certifications pursuant to SOX by the

Individual Defendants, stating that the financial information contained in the Q3 2016 10-Q was

accurate and disclosed any material changes to the Companys internal control over financial

reporting.

44. On February 7, 2017, Chipotle filed an annual report on Form 10-K with the SEC,

announcing the Companys financial and operating results for the quarter and fiscal year ended

December 31, 2016 (the 2016 10-K). For the quarter, Chipotle reported net income of $15.98

million, or $0.55 per diluted share, on revenue of $1.03 billion, compared to net income of

11
Case 1:17-cv-01760-STV Document 1 Filed 07/20/17 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 24

$67.87 million, or $2.17 per diluted share, on revenue of $997.51 million for the same period in

the prior year. For fiscal year 2016, Chipotle reported net income of $22.94 million, or $0.77 per

diluted share, on revenue of $3.90 billion, compared to net income of $475.60 million, or $15.10

per diluted share, on revenue of $4.5 billion for fiscal year 2015.

45. In the 2016 10-K, the Company stated, in relevant part:

Quality and food safety measures are integrated throughout our supply chain,
from the farms that supply our food all the way through to our front line and into
our customers hands. We maintain a limited list of approved suppliers, many of
which are among the top suppliers in the industry. Our quality assurance
department establishes and monitors our quality and food safety programs, and
works closely with our suppliers to ensure our high standards are met
throughout the supply chain. Our training, operations, and risk management
departments develop and implement operating standards for food quality,
preparation, cleanliness, employee health protocols, and safety in the restaurants.
Our food safety programs are also designed to ensure that we not only continue to
comply with applicable federal, state and local food safety regulations, but
establish Chipotle as an industry leader in food safety.

While our food safety programs have always been carefully designed and have
been in conformance with applicable industry standards, over the last year our
Executive Director of Food Safety, a respected expert in the industry, has led a
comprehensive assessment and enhancement of our food safety programs and
practices. Components of our enhanced food safety programs include:

supplier interventions (steps to avoid food safety risks before ingredients

reach Chipotle);
advanced technology (tools that eliminate pathogens while maintaining
food quality);
farmer support and training;
enhanced restaurant procedures (protocols for handling ingredients and
sanitizing surfaces in our restaurants);
food safety certification;
internal and third party restaurant inspections; and
ingredient traceability.
***

As a result of the food safety incidents described elsewhere in this report, we have
implemented a number of enhancements to our food safety protocols to ensure
that our food is as safe as it can be. Many of our enhanced procedures, which
go beyond the industry-standard food safety practices that we were previously
following, increase the cost of some ingredients or the amount of labor required
to prepare and serve our food.

12
Case 1:17-cv-01760-STV Document 1 Filed 07/20/17 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 24

(Emphasis added.)

46. The 2016 10-K contained signed certifications pursuant to SOX by Defendants

Ells and Hartung, stating that the financial information contained in the 2016 10-K was accurate

and disclosed any material changes to the Companys internal control over financial reporting.

47. On April 26, 2017 Chipotle filed a quarterly report on Form 10-Q with the SEC,

announcing the Companys financial and operating results for the quarter ended March 31, 2017

(the Q1 2017 10-Q). For the quarter, Chipotle reported net income of $46.12 million, or $1.60

per diluted share, on revenue of $1.06 billion, compared to a net loss of $26.43 million, or $0.88

per diluted share, on revenue of $834.46 million for the same period in the prior year.

48. The Q1 2017 10-Q contained signed certifications pursuant to SOX by

Defendants Ells and Hartung, stating that the financial information contained in the Q1 2017 10-

Q was accurate and disclosed any material changes to the Companys internal control over

financial reporting.

49. The statements referenced in 35-48 were materially false and misleading

because Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose

material adverse facts about the Companys business, operational and compliance policies.

Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:

(i) Chipotles purported improvements in its restaurants food safety policies were inadequate;

(ii) accordingly, Chipotles quality controls were still not in compliance with applicable

consumer and workplace safety regulations; (iii) in turn, Chipotles quality controls remained

inadequate to safeguard consumer and employee health; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing,

Chipotles public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

13
Case 1:17-cv-01760-STV Document 1 Filed 07/20/17 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 24

The Truth Emerges

50. On July 18, 2017, media outlets reported that Chipotle had closed a restaurant in

Sterling, Virginia due to a suspected norovirus outbreak. According to Business Insider, citing

information from iwaspoisoned.com, a website on which consumers document suspected

incidents of foodborne illness, at least 13 customers fell ill after eating at the Chipotle restaurant

in question between July 14 and July 15. The Business Insider article further stated that

customers who fell sick after eating at the restaurant reported vomiting violently, fevers,

violent stomach cramps, and dizziness for several days.

51. On this news, Chipotles share price fell $17.02, or 4.34%, to close at $374.98 on

July 18, 2017.

52. On July 20, 2017, The Wall Street Journal published an article entitled Over 100

Report Being Sickened at Virginia Chipotle, disclosing that the number of reports of illness

associated with the restaurant-chain continue to rise. The article stated, in relevant part:

Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. reopened the location it temporarily closed this week
in Sterling, Va. after learning of a small number of customers who complained of
getting sick after eating there.

But its latest food safety incident may be worse than expected, as the number of
reports of illness associated with that store last week continue to rise.

Chipotle closed the Sterling location on Monday for a thorough sanitization

after learning of anonymous complaints posted on iwaspoisoned.com, saying it
suspected the culprit was norovirus, a common virus that can be spread through
food that has been handled by people who are sick. The location reopened on
Wednesday.

As of late Wednesday night, Patrick Quade, the founder of the food poisoning
website, said the site had received reports of 133 people sickened at the Sterling
Chipotle.

We know that maintaining the highest level of safety in all of our restaurants is
incumbent upon us. I made a commitment on behalf of Chipotle to make our
restaurants the safest place to eat, and I am confident in the programs and
procedures we have implemented, Chipotle founder and Chief Executive Steve

14
Case 1:17-cv-01760-STV Document 1 Filed 07/20/17 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 24

Ells said in a statement, referring to the many changes Chipotle has made to its
food-safety system in the last two years.

On Tuesday, Jim Marsden, Chipotles executive director of food safety, said:

Norovirus does not come from our food supply, and it is safe to eat at Chipotle.

Chipotle is working with the local health department, which is investigating the
cause.

(Emphasis added.)

53. On that same day, Reuters published an article entitled Chipotle Virginia

customer tested positive for norovirus official, reporting that a county health department

official has confirmed norovirus in a customer who ate at the Virginia Chipotle Mexican Grill

Inc. restaurant.

54. Later in the day, CNBC published an article entitled Rodents reportedly fall from

ceiling of Dallas Chipotle, reporting that rodents were spotted at a Dallas-area Chipotle on July

19, 2017. According to the article, diners captured the incident inside the restaurant on video,

which shows rodents crawling around the floor and one climbing up the wall, and with

customers claiming the rodents were falling from the ceiling.

55. On these disclosures, Chipotles share price fell $16.78, or 4.5%, to close at

$356.05 on July 20, 2017.

56. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous

decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have

suffered significant losses and damages.

PLAINTIFFS CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

57. Plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf of a Class, consisting of all those who purchased or

otherwise acquired Chipotle securities during the Class Period (the Class); and were damaged

15
Case 1:17-cv-01760-STV Document 1 Filed 07/20/17 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 24

upon the revelation of the alleged corrective disclosures. Excluded from the Class are

Defendants herein, the officers and directors of the Company, at all relevant times, members of

their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns and any

entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest.

58. The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members is

impracticable. Throughout the Class Period, Chipotle securities were actively traded on the

NYSE. While the exact number of Class members is unknown to Plaintiff at this time and can

be ascertained only through appropriate discovery, Plaintiff believes that there are hundreds or

thousands of members in the proposed Class. Record owners and other members of the Class

may be identified from records maintained by Chipotle or its transfer agent and may be notified

of the pendency of this action by mail, using the form of notice similar to that customarily used

in securities class actions.

59. Plaintiffs claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class as all

members of the Class are similarly affected by Defendants wrongful conduct in violation of

federal law that is complained of herein.

60. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the members of the

Class and has retained counsel competent and experienced in class and securities litigation.

Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to or in conflict with those of the Class.

61. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class and

predominate over any questions solely affecting individual members of the Class. Among the

questions of law and fact common to the Class are:

whether the federal securities laws were violated by Defendants acts as alleged
herein;

16
Case 1:17-cv-01760-STV Document 1 Filed 07/20/17 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 24

whether statements made by Defendants to the investing public during the Class
Period misrepresented material facts about the business, operations and
management of Chipotle;

whether the Individual Defendants caused Chipotle to issue false and

misleading financial statements during the Class Period;

whether Defendants acted knowingly or recklessly in issuing false and

misleading financial statements;

whether the prices of Chipotle securities during the Class Period were
artificially inflated because of the Defendants conduct complained of herein;
and

whether the members of the Class have sustained damages and, if so, what is the
proper measure of damages.

62. A class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient

adjudication of this controversy since joinder of all members is impracticable. Furthermore, as

the damages suffered by individual Class members may be relatively small, the expense and

burden of individual litigation make it impossible for members of the Class to individually

redress the wrongs done to them. There will be no difficulty in the management of this action as

a class action.

63. Plaintiff will rely, in part, upon the presumption of reliance established by the

fraud-on-the-market doctrine in that:

Defendants made public misrepresentations or failed to disclose material facts

during the Class Period;

the omissions and misrepresentations were material;

Chipotle securities are traded in an efficient market;

the Companys shares were liquid and traded with moderate to heavy volume
during the Class Period;

the Company traded on the NYSE and was covered by multiple analysts;

17
Case 1:17-cv-01760-STV Document 1 Filed 07/20/17 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 24

the misrepresentations and omissions alleged would tend to induce a reasonable

investor to misjudge the value of the Companys securities; and

Plaintiff and members of the Class purchased, acquired and/or sold Chipotle
securities between the time the Defendants failed to disclose or misrepresented
material facts and the time the true facts were disclosed, without knowledge of
the omitted or misrepresented facts.

64. Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff and the members of the Class are entitled to a

presumption of reliance upon the integrity of the market.

65. Alternatively, Plaintiff and the members of the Class are entitled to the

presumption of reliance established by the Supreme Court in Affiliated Ute Citizens of the State

of Utah v. United States, 406 U.S. 128, 92 S. Ct. 2430 (1972), as Defendants omitted material

information in their Class Period statements in violation of a duty to disclose such information,

as detailed above.

COUNT I

(Against All Defendants For Violations of

Section 10(b) And Rule 10b-5 Promulgated Thereunder)

66. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained above as if

fully set forth herein.

67. This Count is asserted against Defendants and is based upon Section 10(b) of the

Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC.

68. During the Class Period, Defendants engaged in a plan, scheme, conspiracy and

course of conduct, pursuant to which they knowingly or recklessly engaged in acts, transactions,

practices and courses of business which operated as a fraud and deceit upon Plaintiff and the

other members of the Class; made various untrue statements of material facts and omitted to state

material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances

under which they were made, not misleading; and employed devices, schemes and artifices to

18
Case 1:17-cv-01760-STV Document 1 Filed 07/20/17 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 24

defraud in connection with the purchase and sale of securities. Such scheme was intended to,

and, throughout the Class Period, did: (i) deceive the investing public, including Plaintiff and

other Class members, as alleged herein; (ii) artificially inflate and maintain the market price of

Chipotle securities; and (iii) cause Plaintiff and other members of the Class to purchase or

otherwise acquire Chipotle securities and options at artificially inflated prices. In furtherance of

this unlawful scheme, plan and course of conduct, Defendants, and each of them, took the

actions set forth herein.

69. Pursuant to the above plan, scheme, conspiracy and course of conduct, each of the

Defendants participated directly or indirectly in the preparation and/or issuance of the quarterly

and annual reports, SEC filings, press releases and other statements and documents described

above, including statements made to securities analysts and the media that were designed to

influence the market for Chipotle securities. Such reports, filings, releases and statements were

materially false and misleading in that they failed to disclose material adverse information and

misrepresented the truth about Chipotles internal quality controls, finances, and business

prospects.

70. By virtue of their positions at Chipotle, Defendants had actual knowledge of the

materially false and misleading statements and material omissions alleged herein and intended

thereby to deceive Plaintiff and the other members of the Class, or, in the alternative, Defendants

acted with reckless disregard for the truth in that they failed or refused to ascertain and disclose

such facts as would reveal the materially false and misleading nature of the statements made,

although such facts were readily available to Defendants. Said acts and omissions of Defendants

were committed willfully or with reckless disregard for the truth. In addition, each Defendant

19
Case 1:17-cv-01760-STV Document 1 Filed 07/20/17 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 24

knew or recklessly disregarded that material facts were being misrepresented or omitted as

described above.

71. Defendants were personally motivated to make false statements and omit material

information necessary to make the statements not misleading in order to personally benefit from

the sale of Chipotle securities from their personal portfolios.

72. Information showing that Defendants acted knowingly or with reckless disregard

for the truth is peculiarly within Defendants knowledge and control. As the senior managers

and/or directors of Chipotle, the Individual Defendants had knowledge of the details of

Chipotles internal affairs.

73. The Individual Defendants are liable both directly and indirectly for the wrongs

complained of herein. Because of their positions of control and authority, the Individual

Defendants were able to and did, directly or indirectly, control the content of the statements of

Chipotle. As officers and/or directors of a publicly-held company, the Individual Defendants

had a duty to disseminate timely, accurate, and truthful information with respect to Chipotles

quality controls, businesses, operations, future financial condition and future prospects. As a

result of the dissemination of the aforementioned false and misleading reports, releases and

public statements, the market price of Chipotle securities was artificially inflated throughout the

Class Period. In ignorance of the adverse facts concerning Chipotles business and financial

condition which were concealed by Defendants, Plaintiff and the other members of the Class

purchased or otherwise acquired Chipotle securities at artificially inflated prices and relied upon

the price of the securities, the integrity of the market for the securities and/or upon statements

disseminated by Defendants, and were damaged thereby.

20
Case 1:17-cv-01760-STV Document 1 Filed 07/20/17 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 24

74. During the Class Period, Chipotle securities were traded on an active and efficient

market. Plaintiff and the other members of the Class, relying on the materially false and

misleading statements described herein, which the Defendants made, issued or caused to be

disseminated, or relying upon the integrity of the market, purchased or otherwise acquired shares

of Chipotle securities at prices artificially inflated by Defendants wrongful conduct. Had

Plaintiff and the other members of the Class known the truth, they would not have purchased or

otherwise acquired said securities, or would not have purchased or otherwise acquired them at

the inflated prices that were paid. At the time of the purchases and/or acquisitions by Plaintiff

and the Class, the true value of Chipotle securities was substantially lower than the prices paid

by Plaintiff and the other members of the Class. The market price of Chipotle securities declined

sharply upon public disclosure of the facts alleged herein to the injury of Plaintiff and Class

members.

75. By reason of the conduct alleged herein, Defendants knowingly or recklessly,

directly or indirectly, have violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5

promulgated thereunder.

76. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants wrongful conduct, Plaintiff and

the other members of the Class suffered damages in connection with their respective purchases,

acquisitions and sales of the Companys securities during the Class Period, upon the disclosure

that the Company had been disseminating misrepresented financial statements to the investing

public.

21
Case 1:17-cv-01760-STV Document 1 Filed 07/20/17 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 24

COUNT II

(Violations of Section 20(a) of the

Exchange Act Against The Individual Defendants)

77. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in the

foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

78. During the Class Period, the Individual Defendants participated in the operation

and management of Chipotle, and conducted and participated, directly and indirectly, in the

conduct of Chipotles business affairs. Because of their senior positions, they knew the adverse

non-public information about Chipotles misstatement of income and expenses and false

financial statements.

79. As officers and/or directors of a publicly owned company, the Individual

Defendants had a duty to disseminate accurate and truthful information with respect to

Chipotles financial condition and results of operations, and to correct promptly any public

statements issued by Chipotle which had become materially false or misleading.

80. Because of their positions of control and authority as senior officers, the

Individual Defendants were able to, and did, control the contents of the various reports, press

releases and public filings which Chipotle disseminated in the marketplace during the Class

Period concerning Chipotles results of operations. Throughout the Class Period, the Individual

Defendants exercised their power and authority to cause Chipotle to engage in the wrongful acts

complained of herein. The Individual Defendants therefore, were controlling persons of

Chipotle within the meaning of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. In this capacity, they

participated in the unlawful conduct alleged which artificially inflated the market price of

Chipotle securities.

22
Case 1:17-cv-01760-STV Document 1 Filed 07/20/17 USDC Colorado Page 23 of 24

81. Each of the Individual Defendants, therefore, acted as a controlling person of

Chipotle. By reason of their senior management positions and/or being directors of Chipotle,

each of the Individual Defendants had the power to direct the actions of, and exercised the same

to cause, Chipotle to engage in the unlawful acts and conduct complained of herein. Each of the

Individual Defendants exercised control over the general operations of Chipotle and possessed

the power to control the specific activities which comprise the primary violations about which

Plaintiff and the other members of the Class complain.

82. By reason of the above conduct, the Individual Defendants are liable pursuant to

Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act for the violations committed by Chipotle.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants as follows:

A. Determining that the instant action may be maintained as a class action under

Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and certifying Plaintiff as the Class

representative;

B. Requiring Defendants to pay damages sustained by Plaintiff and the Class by

reason of the acts and transactions alleged herein;

C. Awarding Plaintiff and the other members of the Class prejudgment and post-

judgment interest, as well as their reasonable attorneys fees, expert fees and other costs; and

D. Awarding such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury.

Dated: July 20, 2017

Respectfully submitted,

23
Case 1:17-cv-01760-STV Document 1 Filed 07/20/17 USDC Colorado Page 24 of 24

POMERANTZ LLP
Jeremy A. Lieberman
J. Alexander Hood II
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, New York 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com

POMERANTZ LLP
Patrick V. Dahlstrom
10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Telephone: (312) 377-1181
Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

24