Hein v. Crash Champions LLC et al

Filing 18

MINUTE ORDER: Plaintiff's 13 Motion to Remand is DENIED in part and DEFERRED in part. Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is DENIED to the extent that Plaintiff asserts he has not sufficiently pleaded Article III standing. The Motion to Remand i s DEFERRED with respect to whether the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act. Defendant is DIRECTED to file by 11/1/2024, a corrected Corporate Disclosure Statement and a supplemental response to Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, addressing whether the Court has CAFA jurisdiction. Plaintiff may file a supplemental reply by 11/8/2024. Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is RENOTED to 11/8/2024. Authorized by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. (MJV)

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

2
3

DOUGLAS HEIN,

4

Plaintiff,

5

C24-1176 LK TSZ

v.

6
7

CRASH CHAMPIONS, LLC; and
DOES 1-10,

8

Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER

9

The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable
Thomas
S. Zilly, United States District Judge:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

(1)
Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, docket no. 13, is DENIED in part and
DEFERRED in part, as follows:
(a) In his Motion to Remand, Plaintiff contends that his Complaint is
identical to complaints filed in Floyd v. Insight Global LLC, No. 23-cv-1680, 2024 WL
2133370 (W.D. Wash. May 10, 2024), and other cases where courts have remanded due
to lack of Article III standing. 1 Plaintiff’s reliance on Floyd and other cases is misguided.
In Floyd, the plaintiff did not plead that he applied “in good faith” for the job at issue, but
rather included such allegation in his declaration in opposition to the defendant’s motion
to dismiss. 2024 WL 2133370, at *8. The Floyd court declined to consider his declaration
as part of his pleading. Id. In this case, however, in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint, docket
no. 1-2, Plaintiff alleged that he applied for the position in good faith and with the
genuine intent of gaining employment. Thus, Floyd is distinguishable, as are the other
cases cited by Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is DENIED to the extent that
Plaintiff asserts he has not sufficiently pleaded Article III standing.

19
1

See also Atkinson v. Aaron’s, LLC, No. 23-cv-1742, 2024 WL 2133358 (W.D. Wash. May 10, 2024);

20 David v. Herc Rentals Inc., No. 24-cv-175, 2024 WL 2133369 (W.D. Wash. May 10, 2024); Floyd v.

DoorDash, Inc., No. 23-cv-1740, 2024 WL 2325128 (W.D. Wash. May 22, 2024); Spencer v. RXO, Inc.,
No.
23-cv-1760, 2024 WL 2399974 (W.D. Wash. May 23, 2024); Spencer v. Vera Whole Health, Inc.,
21
No. 24-cv-337, 2024 WL 3276578 (W.D. Wash. July 2, 2024); Atkinson v. Penney Opco LLC, No. 23-cv1806, 2024 WL 3579910 (W.D. Wash. July 30, 2024); and Watson v. Deacon Constr., LLC, No. 23-cv22 1806, 2024 WL 3579912 (W.D. Wash. July 30, 2024).

23
MINUTE ORDER - 1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

(b) The Motion to Remand is DEFERRED with respect to whether the
Court has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act
(“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). CAFA requires that an action removed from state court
involve a class with at least 100 putative members, that at least one plaintiff is diverse in
citizenship from any defendant, and that the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds
$5 million. See Moliga v. Qdoba Restaurant Corp., No. 23-CV-1084, 2023 WL 5013439,
at *4 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 7, 2023). The removing party has the burden of overcoming the
strong presumption against removal jurisdiction by establishing that the CAFA criteria
are met. See Lindley Contours, LLC v. AABB Fitness Holdings, Inc., 414 F. App’x 62, 64
(9th Cir. 2011). Although Defendant Crash Champions, LLC’s Notice of Removal,
docket no. 1, indicates that the proposed class includes more than 100 individuals, it fails
to allege sufficient facts to support the requisite diversity. The Notice of Removal
erroneously applied the citizenship standard for corporations rather than for limited
liability companies. See Notice of Removal at ¶ 14 (docket no. 1). As a limited liability
company, Defendant is a citizen of every state in which its members are domiciled. See
Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). This
standard is codified in LCR 7.1 with which Defendant’s Corporate Disclosure Statement,
docket no. 3, does not comply. With regard to the amount in controversy, Defendant
asserts that the maximum in potential statutory damages ($5,000) may be aggregated by
class member, as opposed to statutory violation, and contends that the approximately
1,586 individuals who applied during the period from January 1, 2023, to July 12, 2024,
for one job opening in Washington would be entitled to at least $7,930,000. See Notice of
Removal at ¶ 22 (docket no. 1). Defendant provides no authority for interpreting the
Washington statute to authorize the calculation of class damages in this manner.
Defendant is DIRECTED to file by November 1, 2024, a corrected Corporate Disclosure
Statement and a supplemental response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, addressing
whether the Court has CAFA jurisdiction. Plaintiff may file a supplemental reply by
November 8, 2024.

(c)
Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, docket no. 13, is RENOTED to
16 November 8, 2024.
17
18

(2) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Minute Order to all counsel of
record and the Honorable Lauren J. King.
Dated this 24th day of October, 2024.

19
Ravi Subramanian
Clerk

20
21

s/Laurie Cuaresma
Deputy Clerk

22
23
MINUTE ORDER - 2