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)

Download PDF
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?