State of Nevada et al v. United States Department of Labor et al, No. 4:2016cv00731 - Document 127 (E.D. Tex. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Respondents Carmen Alvarez and her Counsel's Motion to Supplement the Record Regarding Chipotle's Motion for Contempt (Dkt. # 125 ) is hereby GRANTED, and the motion and the exhibits attached thereto will be considered part of the record regarding Petitioners Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.'s and Chipotle Services, LLC's Motion for Contempt (Dkt. # 89 ). Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 3/19/2018. (rpc, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
State of Nevada et al v. United States Department of Labor et al Doc. 127 United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION STATE OF NEVADA, et al., v. UNITED STATES LABOR, et al., DEPARTMENT OF § § § § § § Civil Action No. 4:16-CV-00731 Judge Mazzant MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the Court is Respondents Carmen Alvarez and her Counsel’s Motion to Supplement the Record Regarding Chipotle’s Motion for Contempt (Dkt. #125). Alvarez and her Counsel seek to supplement the Court’s record with evidence of her counsel’s good faith when violating the Court’s Order (Dkt. #125). Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. and Chipotle Services, LLC, however, contend that Alvarez’s and her Counsel’s motion not only violates local procedure but also seeks to inject irrelevant evidence into the Court’s contempt analysis (Dkt. #126). After reviewing the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the motion should be granted.1 It is therefore ORDERED that Respondents Carmen Alvarez and her Counsel’s Motion to Supplement the Record Regarding Chipotle’s Motion for Contempt (Dkt. #125) is hereby GRANTED, and the motion and the exhibits attached thereto will be considered part of the record regarding Petitioners Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.’s and Chipotle Services, LLC’s Motion for Contempt (Dkt. #89). 1 Although Alvarez’s local counsel did not technically comply with Local Rule CV-7(h), the Court decides to accept the motion. In doing so, the Court weighs Alvarez’s local counsel’s effort to confer with opposing counsel, local counsel’s reasonable desire to supplement the record by which contempt may be determined, and the immateriality of evidence of good faith to the Court’s contempt analysis. Dockets.Justia.com SIGNED this 19th day of March, 2018. ___________________________________ AMOS L. MAZZANT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
