United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
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
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.
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
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.
#1-1 at 4, Prayer for Relief.
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 ...