Zito v. Renal Treatment Centers West Inc

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: August 7, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00820
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 CHARLOTTE ZITO et al., CASE NO. 2:24-cv-00820-LK 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED 12 v. MOTION TO REMAND 13 RENAL TREATMENT CENTERS WEST INC., 14 Defendant. 15 16 17 This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ Stipulated Motion to Remand to State 18 Court. Dkt. No. 31. The parties “have agreed to a stipulated remand in the interest of pursuing 19 settlement” and request that this action be remanded to King County Superior Court. Id. at 3. 20 Courts have a “virtually unflagging obligation to exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon 21 [them] by the coordinate branches of government and duly invoked by litigants,” including 22 removal jurisdiction. Williams v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 471 F.3d 975, 977 (9th Cir. 2006) 23 (quoting United States v. Rubenstein, 971 F.2d 288, 293 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks 24 omitted)). Accordingly, “subject-matter jurisdiction is a beast that parties . . . just can’t kill” by 1 stipulation. Lawrence v. Fairfield Processing Corp., No. 4:22-CV-00985-SRC, 2022 WL 2 10423622, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 18, 2022). A court cannot grant parties’ motion to remand “by 3 thoughtlessly rubber-stamping their proposed order,” particularly if the “the removing parties 4 maintain that the Court had subject matter jurisdiction at the time of removal.” Smith v. Gemcap

5 Trucking, Inc., No. 4:21-CV-242, 2022 WL 1184369, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Apr. 21, 2022). 6 Nonetheless, it is well established that federal courts “have an independent obligation to 7 determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists[.]” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 8 (2006). Indeed, this determination is an “inflexible” threshold requirement that must be made 9 “without exception, for jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and without jurisdiction the court 10 cannot proceed at all in any cause.” Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 577 (1999) 11 (citation modified). The Ninth Circuit “strictly construe[s] the removal statute against removal 12 jurisdiction,” and “[f]ederal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of 13 removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). “The ‘strong 14 presumption’ against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden of

15 establishing that removal is proper.” Id. “If at any time before final judgment it appears that the 16 district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 17 In light of the parties’ stipulated motion and the Court’s independent duty described above, the 18 Court will examine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over this case. 19 Defendant Renal Treatment Centers-West, Inc. removed this action pursuant to the Class 20 Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), which requires, among other things, that the amount in 21 controversy exceed $5,000,000. Dkt. No. 1 at 1; 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). Defendant alleged the 22 amount in controversy based on wage underpayments for 1,600 employees. Dkt. No. 1 at 10. After 23 Defendant produced documents, the parties “meaningfully and repeatedly conferred,” and they

24 identified “a discrepancy between the named Renal Treatment Centers-West, Inc. employee census 1 (which encompassed 229 putative class members) and the employee census for Defendant’s parent 2 and related companies (which encompassed approximately 1,600 people at the time of removal).” 3 Dkt. No. 31 at 2. Plaintiff has not named those parent and related companies as Defendants, see 4 generally Dkt. No. 1-1, and the parties do not allege that the amount in controversy is met when

5 the putative class includes only 229 members. Defendant Renal Treatment Centers-West, Inc. has 6 therefore failed to meet its burden to establish that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction. 7 The Court therefore ORDERS that: 8 1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), all further proceedings in this case are REMANDED 9 to the Superior Court for King County in the State of Washington; 10 2. The Clerk of the Court shall mail a certified copy of this Order to the Clerk of the Court 11 for the Superior Court for King County Washington; 12 3. The Clerk of the Court shall also transmit the record herein to the Clerk of the Court for 13 the Superior Court for King County, Washington; and 14 4. The Clerk of the Court shall CLOSE this case.

15 Dated this 7th day of August, 2025. 16 A 17 Lauren King United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24