Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kaiser v. CSL Plasma Inc.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

February 24, 2017

JASMINE KAISER, Plaintiff,
v.
CSL PLASMA INC., a corporation, Defendant.

          ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO ENFORCE

          RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Confirm and Enforce Settlement Agreement . Dkt. #45. Defendant argues that the parties entered into a binding settlement agreement, even though it has not yet been reduced to writing, and asks the Court to bind Plaintiff to the material terms of that agreement. Id. Plaintiff argues that the parties did not reach agreement on the confidentiality provision and therefore a settlement agreement was never reached and there is nothing to enforce. Dkt. #52. For the reasons discussed below, the Court agrees with Plaintiff and DENIES Defendant's motion.[1]

         II. BACKGROUND

         On April 27, 2015, Plaintiff filed a discrimination action in King County Superior Court against Defendants. Dkt. #1-1. Defendant removed the action to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Dkt. #1.

         In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant CSL Plasma Inc. operates and advertises a plasma center in Kent, Washington, where it pays individuals in exchange for plasma “donations.” Dkt. #1-1 at ¶ 7. Plaintiff further alleges that she went to CSL Plasma intending to make a donation but was turned away because she is a transgender person. Dkt. #9. Plaintiff was apparently told that CSL Plasma had placed a “lifetime” deferment on any donation by Plaintiff, and that CSL Plasma would be notifying other, similar centers of the lifetime deferment, which essentially precluded her from ever “donating” her plasma at one of these centers. Id. As a result, Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit alleging violations of Washington State's Consumer Protection Act (CPA), RCW 19.86.010 to .920, and the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60.010 to .505. Through her suit, Plaintiff seeks the following relief:

A. a monetary judgment against defendant CSL Plasma and in favor of Ms. Kaiser;
B. declaratory relief pursuant to the Consumer Protection Act and the Washington Law Against Discrimination;
C. injunctive relief pursuant to the Consumer Protection Act;
D. exemplary damages, including exemplary damages under RCW 19.86;
E. an award of attorney fees and costs to the extent authorized by Washington law, including the Washington Law Against Discrimination and the Consumer Protection Act; and
F. such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

         Dkt. #1-1 at 4, Prayer for Relief.

         On August 17, 2015, this Court remanded this matter back to King County Superior Court after finding that Defendant had failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the minimum amount in controversy requirement for subject ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.