Williams v. Federal Express Corporation
Filing
1
NOTICE OF REMOVAL from King County Superior Court, case number 12-2-02109-1 KNT; (Receipt # 0981-2729902), filed by Federal Express Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Zissler, James)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
8
9
STACIE WILLIAMS
10
11
12
13
Case No. ____________________
Plaintiff,
v.
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation,
Defendant.
14
DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF
REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT
(DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP)
[28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441]
15
16
TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT
17
AND TO PLAINTIFF STACIE WILLIAMS AND HER COUNSEL OF RECORD
18
19
20
21
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant, Federal Express Corporation, hereby removes
this action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a) and 1441 (b), due to diversity of
citizenship between the parties. In support thereof, Defendant states as follows:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
22
23
24
25
1.
This Court has jurisdiction over this civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)
and this action is one that may be removed to this Court pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
1441(b). Federal Express Corporation is the sole Defendant and consents to removal. As set
26
DEFENDANT'S NOT. OF REMOVAL - 1
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
One Union Square
600 University Street, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101.3122
206.623.3300
1
forth below, this case meets all of the requirements for removal and is timely and properly
2
removed by the filing of this Notice.
3
4
5
6
PLEADINGS, PROCESS AND VENUE
2.
On January 13, 2012 Plaintiff initiated a civil action in the Superior Court for the
State of Washington, King County, Civil Action No. 12-2-02109-1 KNT, wherein Stacie
7
Williams is the Plaintiff and Federal Express Corporation is the Defendant. Defendant was
8
served with a copy of the Complaint and Summons on February 14, 2012. A true and correct
9
copy of the Summons and Complaint is attached as Exhibit A. An Order Setting Case Schedule
10
was also included with the Complaint and Summons. A true and correct copy of the Order
11
12
13
14
Setting Case Schedule is attached as Exhibit B. A true and correct copy of the Declaration of
Service of the Summons, Complaint and Order Setting Civil Case Schedule is attached as
Exhibit C. A true and correct copy of Case Assignment Designation and Case Information
15
Cover Sheet and Case Information Cover Sheet and Area Designation are attached as Exhibit D.
16
By signing this Notice of Removal, counsel for Defendant verifies that the items attached hereto
17
are true and correct copies of all the records and pleadings in the state court proceeding.
18
19
20
21
22
3.
In her Complaint, Plaintiff raises claims of failure to provide reasonable
accommodation and wrongful termination under the Washington state law.
Exhibit A:
Complaint ¶¶ 2.1; 4.1 - 5.2.
4.
Plaintiff is an adult resident citizen of King County, Washington. Exhibit A:
23
Complaint ¶ 1.1. Defendant, Federal Express Corporation, is a Delaware Corporation (Exhibit
24
A: Complaint ¶1.2), and maintains its headquarters in Tennessee. Defendant was not a citizen of
25
the State of Washington at the time this action was commenced, and is not currently a citizen of
26
DEFENDANT'S NOT. OF REMOVAL - 2
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
One Union Square
600 University Street, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101.3122
206.623.3300
1
the State of Washington.
2
Defendant.
3
4
5
6
7
8
5.
Therefore, diversity of citizenship exists between Plaintiff and
This action is a civil action of which this Court has original jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1332 and is one which may be removed to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)
because it is a civil action between citizens of different states and the matter in controversy
exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.
6.
The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00 based on the following: Plaintiff’s
9
Complaint seeks “general and special damages, attorney’s fees and punitive damages.” When a
10
plaintiff fails to plead a specific amount of damages and if the amount in controversy is not
11
12
13
14
“facially apparent” from the complaint, “the court may consider facts in the removal petition” to
determine the amount at issue. Kroske v. US Bank Corp., 432 F.3d 976, 980 (9th Cir. 2005)
(quoting Singer v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co.,113 F.3d 373, 377 (9th Cir. 1977)). Plaintiff alleges
15
a failure to accommodate her disability and that she was wrongfully terminated on or about
16
March 2, 2009. At the time of Plaintiff’s discharge she was earning in excess of $46,000 per
17
year and thus her wage loss claim alone would exceed the jurisdictional amount. Given the
18
19
20
21
nature of her claims the federal amount in controversy requirement is met. Accordingly, this
Court has original and removal jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s allegations.
7.
Venue is proper in the Western District of Washington at Seattle. Venue is proper
22
in this District because this is the district court of the United States for the district where this
23
action is currently pending. Venue is proper at Seattle because the cause of action arose in King
24
County. Exhibit A: Complaint ¶ 1.3; Local Rule 5(e)(1).
25
8.
This Notice of Removal is being filed within thirty (30) days after Defendant’s
26
DEFENDANT'S NOT. OF REMOVAL - 3
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
One Union Square
600 University Street, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101.3122
206.623.3300
1
2
3
4
5
6
receipt of a copy of the Complaint, and is therefore timely filed under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b).
9.
Written notice of the filing of this Notice of Removal has been given to all parties
who have appeared in this action and a Notice of Filing this Notice of Removal has been filed
with the Clerk of the Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of King. Exhibit E:
Notice of Filing Notice of Removal (without attachments).
7
WHEREFORE, Defendant removes this action from the Superior Court of the State of
8
Washington, County of King, to the United States District Court for the Western District of
9
Washington at Seattle.
10
11
March 1, 2012
12
17
s/ James G. Zissler
James G. Zissler, WSBA #30287
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
One Union Square
600 University Street, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101.3122
Phone:
206.623.3300
Fax:
206.447.6965
E-Mail:
jzissler@littler.com
18
AND
19
s/ P. Daniel Riederer (Pro Hac Admission Pending)
P. Daniel Riederer
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION
3620 Hacks Cross Road
Building B, 3rd Floor
Memphis, TN 38125
Phone:
901.434.8600
Fax:
901.434.9279
E-Mail:
daniel.riederer@fedex.com
13
14
15
16
20
21
22
23
24
Attorneys for Defendant
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION
25
26
DEFENDANT'S NOT. OF REMOVAL - 4
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
One Union Square
600 University Street, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101.3122
206.623.3300
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1
2
I am a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party
3
to the within action. My business address is One Union Square, 600 University Street, Suite
4
3200, Seattle, Washington 98101.3122. On March 1, 2012, I served the within documents:
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL
COURT
by causing a copy of the document(s) listed above to be personally served to the person(s)
at the address(es) set forth below.
Thomas M. Geisness, WSBA #1878
Peter T. Geisness, WSBA #30897
THE GEISNESS LAW FIRM
The Colman Building, Suite 675
811 First Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: 206.728.8866
Fax: 206.728.1173
14
15
16
17
I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the
above is true and correct. Executed on March 1, 2012, at Seattle, Washington.
18
s/ Tiffany D. Holiday
Tiffany D. Holiday
tholiday@littler.com
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
19
20
21
22
23
Firmwide:109595386.1 024910.1026
24
25
26
DEFENDANT'S NOT. OF REMOVAL - 5
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
One Union Square
600 University Street, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101.3122
206.623.3300
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?