Case 3:25-cv-05328 Document 1 Filed 04/17/25 Page 1 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`TACOMA DIVISION
`
`Case No.
`
`DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF
`REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT
`
`KYLE REYNOLDS, individually and on
`behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`
`AUTOZONE PARTS, INC., a Nevada
`Corporation; and DOES 1-20, inclusive,
`
`Defendants.
`
`CLERK OF THE COURT
`TO:
`AND TO: PLAINTIFF KYLE REYNOLDS AND HIS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441(b), Defendant
`AUTOZONE PARTS, INC. (“Defendant” or “AutoZone”) hereby removes the instant action from
`the Pierce County Superior Court for the State of Washington, Case No. 25-2-05163-9, to the
`United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Tacoma Division, pursuant
`to the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d) and 1453(b). This Notice of
`Removal is supported by the Declarations of Adam T. Pankratz (“Pankratz Decl.”), McKenzie
`Podesta (“Podesta Decl.”), and Emil Czechowski (“Czechowski Decl.”) filed concurrently
`herewith, and the statements of facts and arguments below.
`
`DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO
`FEDERAL COURT - 1
`Case No.
`
`
`OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 5150 | Seattle, WA 98101
`Phone: 206-693-7057 | Fax: 206-693-7058
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`Case 3:25-cv-05328 Document 1 Filed 04/17/25 Page 2 of 23
`
`
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`1.
`On or about January 8, 2025, Plaintiff Kyle Reynolds (“Plaintiff”) caused to be
`filed a Class Action Complaint for Damages (“Complaint”) in this action in the Pierce County
`Superior Court for the State of Washington, captioned Kyle Reynolds, individually and on behalf
`of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Defendant AutoZone Parts, Inc., a Nevada
`corporation; and Does 1-20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25-2-05163-9. In accordance with
`28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), a true and correct copy of the Complaint is attached to this Notice of Removal
`and as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Adam T. Pankratz (“Pankratz Decl.”) at ¶ 2.
`2.
`On January 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed her 20-day Summons to Defendant AutoZone
`Parts, Inc. with the Pierce County Superior Court. Pankratz Decl. at ¶ 3, Ex. 2.
`3.
`On January 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed a true and correct copy of the Case Information
`Cover Sheet and Area Designation. Pankratz Decl. at ¶ 4, Ex. 3.
`4.
`On January 8, 2025, the Pierce County Superior Court Clerk entered an Order
`Setting Civil Case Schedule. Pankratz Decl. at ¶ 5, Ex. 4.
`5.
`On January 13, 2025, Plaintiff filed her Declaration of Service of Summons and
`Complaint, showing service upon Defendant AutoZone Parts, Inc. on January 10, 2025, through
`their registered agent for service of process in Glendale, California. Pankratz Decl. at ¶ 6, Ex. 5.
`6.
`On January 23, 2025, Plaintiff filed a duplicate Declaration of Service of Summons
`and Complaint, showing service upon Defendant AutoZone Parts, Inc. on January 10, 2025,
`through their registered agent for service of process in Glendale, California. Pankratz Decl. at ¶ 7,
`Ex. 6.
`
`7.
`On February 14, 2025, Adam T. Pankratz and Kristofer T. Noneman filed a Notice
`of Appearance on behalf of Defendant in the Pierce County Superior Court. Pankratz Decl. at ¶ 7,
`Ex. 6.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO
`FEDERAL COURT - 2
`Case No.
`
`
`OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 5150 | Seattle, WA 98101
`Phone: 206-693-7057 | Fax: 206-693-7058
`
`

`

`Case 3:25-cv-05328 Document 1 Filed 04/17/25 Page 3 of 23
`
`
`
`8.
`On February 14, 2025, Adam T. Pankratz and Kristofer T. Noneman filed a Notice
`of Appearance on behalf of Defendant in the Pierce County Superior Court. Pankratz Decl. at ¶ 8,
`Ex. 7.
`
`9.
`On March 10, 2025, Defendant filed its Answer and Defenses to Plaintiff’ Class
`Action Complaint for Damages. Pankratz Decl. at ¶ 9, Ex. 8.
`10.
`The foregoing Exhibits 1–8 constitute all of the process, pleadings, and orders
`either served upon Defendant or filed in this action. Pankratz Decl. at ¶ 10.
`11.
`The deadline for Defendant to remove this action has not expired since receipt by
`Defendant of the Summons and Complaint. Defendant has not voluntarily invoked or submitted
`to the jurisdiction of the Pierce County Superior Court of the State of Washington in any manner.
`Pankratz Decl. at ¶ 10.
`12.
`No further proceedings have been had in the state court as of the date of this Notice.
`Id. As a result, true and correct copies of all process, pleadings, orders, and other records served
`or filed in the state court action are provided herewith as Exhibits to the Declaration of Adam
`Pankratz.
`13.
`By filing this Notice of Removal, Defendant does not waive, but expressly reserves,
`any objections as to the legal sufficiency of Plaintiff’s claims and any and all other defenses.
`II.
`TIMELINESS OF REMOVAL
`14.
`On January 10, 2025, Defendant AutoZone Parts, Inc., received service of the
`Summons and Complaint through their registered agents for service of process in Glendale,
`California. These documents were the initial pleadings received by Defendant setting forth of the
`claims upon which this action is based. On March 10, 2025, Defendant timely filed an Answer to
`Plaintiff’s Complaint. Pankratz Decl., ¶ 9.
`15.
`The time to remove under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) does not begin to run until receipt
`by a defendant, through service or otherwise, of a pleading, motion, order, or other paper from
`which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable. Harris v.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO
`FEDERAL COURT - 3
`Case No.
`
`
`OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 5150 | Seattle, WA 98101
`Phone: 206-693-7057 | Fax: 206-693-7058
`
`

`

`Case 3:25-cv-05328 Document 1 Filed 04/17/25 Page 4 of 23
`
`
`
`Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689, 694 (9th Cir. 2005); see also Kuxhausen v. BMW Fin.
`Servs. NA, LLC, 707 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2013) (defendants are not required to investigate
`jurisdictional facts to ascertain removability).
`16.
`Following Harris and Kuxhausen, the Ninth Circuit further declared a defendant
`does not have an affirmative duty to investigate whether a case is removable upon receiving the
`complaint, nor is it required to engage in guesswork regarding removability. Roth v. CHA
`Hollywood Med. Ctr., LP, 720 F.3d 1121, 1125 (9th Cir. 2013). District courts have subsequently
`followed this Ninth Circuit precedent: “The crux of Plaintiff’s argument for remand—that
`Defendant could have removed earlier based on information contained in its own records—is thus
`contradicted by Ninth Circuit case law.” Jakuttis v. Allstate Indem. Co., No. EDCV 15-0624 JGB
`(KKx), 2015 WL 3442083, at *4 (C.D. Cal. May 27, 2015). “Regardless of when [the defendant]
`learned the parties were diverse, their notice of removal was timely under 28 U.S.C. §
`1446(b)(3)[.]” Vigil v. Waste Connections, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-02383-KJM-CKD, 2015 WL 627877,
`at *4 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2015).
`17.
`Here, the four corners of the Complaint do not provide readily ascertainable
`grounds for removal. The Complaint does not allege sufficient facts to calculate the amount in
`controversy with reasonable certainty as to the individually named plaintiff or as to the putative
`class. Accordingly, the time to remove this action has not yet begun. Where the time to remove
`has not yet expired, a defendant may remove at any time if it uncovers evidence establishing that
`the case is removable. Roth, 720 F.3d at 1125.
`18.
`As such, because the time to remove has not yet begun to run, this removal is timely.
`SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS AND GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL
`19.
`Removal is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1453 because this Court has
`subject-matter jurisdiction over this action and all claims asserted against Defendant, pursuant to
`the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”). id. § 1332(d).
`
`III.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO
`FEDERAL COURT - 4
`Case No.
`
`
`OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 5150 | Seattle, WA 98101
`Phone: 206-693-7057 | Fax: 206-693-7058
`
`

`

`Case 3:25-cv-05328 Document 1 Filed 04/17/25 Page 5 of 23
`
`
`
`20.
`CAFA applies “to any class action before or after the entry of a class certification
`order by the court with respect to that action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(8). This case is a putative
`“class action” under CAFA because it was brought under Washington State Civil Rule 23,
`authorizing an action to be brought by one or more representative persons as a class action. See 28
`U.S.C. § 1332(d)(1)(B).
`21.
`Plaintiff seeks to represent the following Class and Sub-Class:
`
`Class Members: All individuals currently or formerly employed by any one or
`more of the Defendants at any location in Washington State at any time from three
`years prior to filing of the Complaint through the present (“Class Period”).
`
`Seattle Subclass Members: All individuals currently or formerly employed by
`Defendants to work within the geographic boundaries of the City of Seattle at any
`time during the Class Period. (Complaint, ¶15.)
`
`22.
`In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges six (6) causes of action against Defendant: (1)
`Implied Cause of Action pursuant to RCW 49.12- Failure to Compensate for Missed Meal and
`Rest Periods in Violation of WAC 296-126-092; (2) Double Damages for Willful and Intentional
`Withholding of Wages pursuant to RCW 49.52.050.070- flowing from the First Cause of Action
`on behalf of Plaintiff and the Class Members; (3) Minimum Wage Violations- Washington
`Minimum Wage Act; RCW 49.46 et seq. on behalf of Plaintiff and Class Members; (4) Failure to
`Pay Overtime Wages on behalf of Plaintiff and Class Members; (5) Record Keeping Violations on
`behalf of Plaintiff and Class Members; and (6) Wage Theft under Seattle Municipal Code 14.20,
`et seq. on behalf of Plaintiff and the Seattle Subclass Members. (Complaint)
`23.
`Among other things, Plaintiff alleges putative class members are entitled to
`damages for noncompliant meal and rest periods, overtime wages, double damages, damages for
`expense reimbursement, and attorneys’ fees (see generally Complaint). More specifically,
`Plaintiff alleges the following: “Defendants failed to have a policy or practice of scheduling
`compliant meal and/or rest periods, nor did Defendants have a consistent and accurate policy or
`practice to regularly record and compensate Plaintiff and other class members for missed, late
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO
`FEDERAL COURT - 5
`Case No.
`
`
`OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 5150 | Seattle, WA 98101
`Phone: 206-693-7057 | Fax: 206-693-7058
`
`

`

`Case 3:25-cv-05328 Document 1 Filed 04/17/25 Page 6 of 23
`
`
`
`and/or interrupted meal or rest periods” (Compl., ¶11); “[a]t times, Defendants failed to provide
`Plaintiff and Class Members with meal and rest periods” (Id., ¶11.); “Defendants’ systemic failure
`to comply with Washington wage and hour laws and regulations,” (Id., ¶17); “At times, Defendants
`failed to provide Plaintiff and Class Members with statutory meal and rest periods” (Id., ¶33);
`“Defendants, at times, did not and do not provide their hourly-paid, non-exempt employees with
`statutory ten-minute rest periods for every four hours of work, or 30-minute meal periods between
`the second and the fifth hours of their shifts” (Id., ¶33); “Defendants have a policy and/or practice
`of requiring Plaintiff and other Class Members to obtain authorization from a manager and/or be
`told by a manager to take any meal periods, and Plaintiff and other Class Members were threatened
`with disciplinary action for taking their owed meal periods without first obtaining authorization
`from Defendants, resulting in denied meal periods at times as Defendants at times failed to
`authorize meal periods during Plaintiff’s and other Class Members’ shifts” (Id., ¶37); “Defendant
`failed to compensate Plaintiff and Class Members with an additional thirty minutes of work time,
`at their respective regular rate(s) of pay, for each instance on which they were not provided a meal
`period of at least thirty minutes beginning no less than two (2) hours and no more than five (5)
`hours after the beginning of their shifts, for shifts greater than five (5) hours long, in violation of
`Washington law” (Id., ¶38); “Defendants have a policy and/or practice of requiring Class Members
`to obtain authorization from a manager and/or be told by a manager to take any rest periods,
`resulting in denied rest periods at times as Defendants at times failed to authorize rest periods
`during Class Members’ shifts” (Id., ¶40); “Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and Class
`Members with an additional ten minutes of work time, at their respective regular rate(s) of pay, for
`each instance on which Defendants required Plaintiff and Class Members to work greater than
`three (3) consecutive hours without a rest period, provided a rest period of less than ten (10)
`minutes in length, or did not provide a rest period that was at least ten (10) minutes long, for every
`four hours worked” (Id., ¶41); “Defendants had no policy or practice to schedule meal or rest
`periods, nor did Defendants maintain a policy or practice that allowed Plaintiff and Class Members
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO
`FEDERAL COURT - 6
`Case No.
`
`
`OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 5150 | Seattle, WA 98101
`Phone: 206-693-7057 | Fax: 206-693-7058
`
`

`

`Case 3:25-cv-05328 Document 1 Filed 04/17/25 Page 7 of 23
`
`
`
`to record the instances on which they missed meal and rest periods/received non-compliant meal
`and rest period, or to be compensated for missed meal and rest periods” (Id., ¶42); “[A]t times,
`Defendants failed to provide compliant meal and rest periods and failed to compensate Plaintiff
`and Class Members for missed meal and rest periods throughout the Class Period” (Id., ¶43);
`“Defendants’ violations as alleged above are willful with the intent to deprive Plaintiff and Class
`Members of all wages owed for missed meal and rest periods” (Id., ¶44); “Defendants were
`actually aware, or through reasonable diligence should have been aware, that Plaintiff and the
`Class Members were working through rest periods and meal periods in violation of WAC 296-
`126-092” (Id., ¶48); “Defendants knowingly violated WAC 296-126-092 by failing to schedule
`rest periods, buy failing to provide meal periods and rest periods, and by routinely and as a matter
`of official or unofficial policy and custom understaffing Defendants locations, rendering it
`impossible for Plaintiff and the Class to always take rest and meal periods” (Id., ¶48); “Defendants’
`violations as alleged above are willful with the intent to deprive Plaintiff and Class Members of
`all wages (including, where applicable, all overtime wages) owed for missed, shortened, and/or
`otherwise noncompliant rest periods and late, missed, shortened, and/or otherwise noncompliant
`meal periods (Id., ¶49); “Defendants at times required Plaintiff and the Class Members to complete
`work tasks prior to clocking in/signing in for the start of their shifts and/or after clocking out for
`the end of their shifts and/or otherwise outside of scheduled shift times, resulting in Defendants’
`failure to compensate Plaintiff and the Class Members for all hours worked” (Id., ¶50);
`“Defendants additionally engaged
`in unauthorized
`time editing/rounding” (Id., ¶51);
`“Defendants failed to reimburse Class Members for all business expenses incurred in carrying out
`their assigned job duties, including but not limited to, the use of Class Members’ personal cell
`phones/mobile devices, internet and/or data usage for work-related purposes, including but not
`limited to, to receive and respond to work-related messages and/or phone calls” (Id., ¶52);
`“Defendants’ failure to reimburse Class Members for all of Defendants’ business expenses
`functioned as a deduction from Class Members’ earned wages during those pay periods in which
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO
`FEDERAL COURT - 7
`Case No.
`
`
`OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 5150 | Seattle, WA 98101
`Phone: 206-693-7057 | Fax: 206-693-7058
`
`

`

`Case 3:25-cv-05328 Document 1 Filed 04/17/25 Page 8 of 23
`
`
`
`Class Members were required to use their personal cell phones for work without reimbursement,
`resulting in Class Members not being paid all owed regular and overtime wages” (Id., ¶52); “At
`times during the relevant time period, Defendants failed to reimburse Plaintiff and the Seattle
`Subclass Members for all business expenses incurred in carrying out their assigned job duties,
`including but not limited to, uniforms/work clothing/work shoes/personal protective/safety gear
`and the use of Plaintiff’s and other Seattle Subclass Members’ personal cell phones/mobile
`devices, internet and/or data usage for work-related purposes, including but not limited to, to
`receive and respond to work-related messages and/or phone calls” (Id., ¶56); “[A]t times, Plaintiff
`and other Seattle Subclass Members were required to receive and respond to work-related calls
`and/or messages from supervisors and/or other employees regarding scheduling and/or other work
`tasks but were not reimbursed by Defendants at all and/or in full for these business expenses (id.,
`¶57); “[A]t times, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and Class Members with meal periods and
`rest periods. At times, Defendant did not provide Plaintiff and Class Members with statutory ten-
`minute rest periods for every four hours of work and failed to provide 30-minute meal periods no
`later than the fifth hour of their shifts” (Id., ¶65); “Defendants had no policy or practice to schedule
`meal periods or rest periods, for Plaintiff and Class Members to record missed or otherwise
`noncompliant meal periods or rest periods, or to compensate them for missed or otherwise
`noncompliant meal or rest periods” (Id., ¶65); “Defendants’ violations and its willful intent to
`deprive Plaintiff and Class Members of all earned wages for missed or otherwise noncompliant
`meal periods and rest periods, Defendants deprived Plaintiff and the Class Members of
`compensation” (Id., ¶65); “By failing to compensate Plaintiff and the Class for missed or otherwise
`noncompliant meal periods and rest periods, Defendants acted willfully with the intent to deprive
`Plaintiff and the Class Members of compensation to which they were entitled” (Id., ¶67);
`“Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and Class Members for all time worked” (Id., ¶72); “Defendants
`engaged in a common course of failing to provide Plaintiff and Class Members with ten minutes
`of additional pay for each missed rest break and with thirty minutes of additional pay for each
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO
`FEDERAL COURT - 8
`Case No.
`
`
`OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 5150 | Seattle, WA 98101
`Phone: 206-693-7057 | Fax: 206-693-7058
`
`

`

`Case 3:25-cv-05328 Document 1 Filed 04/17/25 Page 9 of 23
`
`
`
`missed or otherwise non-compliant meal break” (Id., ¶72); “Defendants engaged in a common
`course of failing to provide Plaintiff and Class Members with ten minutes of additional pay for
`each missed rest break and thirty minutes of additional pay for each missed or otherwise
`noncompliant meal break (Id., ¶72);
`24.
`Removal of a class action under CAFA is proper if: (1) there are at least one
`hundred (100) members in the putative class; (2) there is minimal diversity between the parties,
`such that at least one class member is a citizen of a state different from any defendant; and (3) the
`aggregate amount in controversy exceeds five million dollars ($5,000,000), exclusive of interest
`and costs. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d), 1441.
`25.
`Defendant denies any liability in this case, both as to Plaintiff’s individual claims
`and as to the claims he seeks to pursue on behalf of the putative class. However, solely for purposes
`of the jurisdictional requirements for removal, the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint and a
`thorough analysis of Defendant’s data demonstrates there is a putative class of more than one
`hundred (100) members and the alleged claims place in controversy, in the aggregate, an amount
`substantially exceeding five million dollars ($5,000,000). See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(6).
`A.
`The Proposed Class Consists of More Than One Hundred (100) Members.
`26.
`Based on the allegations in the Complaint, this action satisfies CAFA’s requirement
`that the putative class contains at least one hundred (100) members. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(5)(B).
`27.
`Plaintiff proposes to represent “[a]ll individuals currently or formerly employed by
`any one of more of the Defendants at any location in Washington State any time from the three
`years prior to the filing of the Complaint through the present (“Class Period”).” (Complaint, ¶15.)
`Plaintiff acknowledges the class consists of “at least fifty current and former hourly paid
`employees” (Id., ¶17.) The putative classes consist of those who were and are employed by
`Defendants in Washington at any time during the period of three (3) years prior to the filing of the
`Complaint. (Id., ¶ 15.) Based on a review of the Defendants’ business records, the putative class,
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO
`FEDERAL COURT - 9
`Case No.
`
`
`OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 5150 | Seattle, WA 98101
`Phone: 206-693-7057 | Fax: 206-693-7058
`
`

`

`Case 3:25-cv-05328 Document 1 Filed 04/17/25 Page 10 of 23
`
`
`
`as defined by Plaintiff’s Complaint, includes over 4,771 putative class members. (Czechowski
`Decl., ¶¶ 5, 6.)
`28.
`Although Defendant denies class treatment is appropriate, Plaintiff’s proposed
`class, as pled, and if certified, would easily consist of well in excess of one hundred (100)
`members.
`Diversity of the Parties Exists.
`B.
`29.
`Under CAFA’s minimum diversity of citizenship requirement, the plaintiff or any
`member of the putative class must be a citizen of a different state from any defendant. See 28
`U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A). That is, the citizenship of at least one class member is diverse from the
`citizenship of at least one defendant. Id.
`30.
`A person is a citizen of the state in which he or she is domiciled. Kantor v. Wellesley
`Galleries, Ltd., 704 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 1983). A party’s residence is prima facie evidence
`of his or her domicile. Ayala v. Cox Auto., Inc., No. CV 16-06341-GHK (ASx), 2016 WL 6561284,
`at *4 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2016) (citing State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Dyer, 19 F.3d 514, 520
`(10th Cir. 1994)). Plaintiff has alleged he is a resident of the state of Washington. (Compl., ¶ 7.)
`Additionally, at all times during employment, he confirmed he was a resident of the state of
`Washington. (Podesta Decl., ¶6.) These allegations are prima facie evidence of domicile, which
`creates a rebuttable presumption sufficient to support removal. Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 751
`(9th Cir. 1986) (allegations of residency in state court complaint create rebuttable presumption of
`domicile). Plaintiff is therefore considered a citizen of Washington for purposes of removal under
`CAFA. See Ayala, 2016 WL 6561284 at *4.
`31.
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332, subdivision (c), “a corporation shall be deemed to be
`a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal
`place of business.”
`32.
`The Supreme Court has interpreted the phrase “principal place of business” in 28
`U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) to mean “the place where a corporation’s officers direct, control, and
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO
`FEDERAL COURT - 10
`Case No.
`
`
`OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 5150 | Seattle, WA 98101
`Phone: 206-693-7057 | Fax: 206-693-7058
`
`

`

`Case 3:25-cv-05328 Document 1 Filed 04/17/25 Page 11 of 23
`
`
`
`coordinate the corporation’s activities,” i.e., its “nerve center,” which “should normally be the
`place where the corporation maintains its headquarters—provided that the headquarters is the
`actual center of direction, control, and coordination[.]” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 92-93
`(2010).
`33.
`At the time this action commenced in state court and as remains today, Defendant
`AutoZone Parts, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Nevada. (Podesta
`Decl.”), ¶4.)
`34.
`AutoZone Parts, Inc.’s business operations and executive and administrative
`functions are controlled by its corporate headquarters in Memphis, Tennessee. (Podesta Decl., ¶5.)
`35.
`Thus, AutoZone Parts, Inc. is a citizen of the states of Nevada and Tennessee.
`36.
`“For purposes of removal … the citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious
`names shall be disregarded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(1). Inclusion of “DOE” defendants in a state
`court Complaint has no effect on removability. Newcombe v. Adolf Coors Co., 157 F.3d 686, 690
`(9th Cir. 1998) (holding that in determining whether diversity of citizenship exists, only named
`defendants are considered). Therefore, Plaintiff’s inclusion of DOES 1 through 20 in the
`Complaint is inapposite to the issue of diversity or removal.
`37.
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a) and 1441(a), this Court has original jurisdiction
`over this case under CAFA because Plaintiff is and was, at all times relevant to this action, a citizen
`of the State of Washington, and Defendant AutoZone Parts, Inc. is and was, at all times relevant
`to this action, a citizen of the States of Nevada and Tennessee, respectively. Therefore, complete
`diversity between Plaintiff and Defendant exists now, and did exist at the time the Complaint was
`filed, and minimal diversity exists between Defendant and the putative class.
`C.
`The Amount in Controversy Exceeds Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000).
`38.
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), this Court has original jurisdiction over this matter
`because, in addition to the other requirements of § 1332(d), the amount in controversy in this action
`exceeds five million dollars ($5,000,000), exclusive of interest and costs. See 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO
`FEDERAL COURT - 11
`Case No.
`
`
`OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 5150 | Seattle, WA 98101
`Phone: 206-693-7057 | Fax: 206-693-7058
`
`

`

`Case 3:25-cv-05328 Document 1 Filed 04/17/25 Page 12 of 23
`
`
`
`1332(d)(2). Of note, in calculating the amount in controversy, a court must aggregate the claims
`of all individual class members. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(6).
`39.
`Unlike other cases, there is no anti-removal presumption for cases invoking CAFA.
`Arias v. Residency Inn by Marriott, 936 F.3d 920, 922 (9th Cir. 2019).
`40.
`“[A] defendant’s notice of removal need include only a plausible allegation that the
`amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Dart Cherokee Basin Op. Co. v.
`Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89 (2014). A removing defendant’s notice of removal “need not contain
`evidentiary submissions.” Arias, 936 F.3d at 922 (quoting Ibarra v. Manheim Invs., Inc., 775 F.3d
`1193, 1197 (9th Cir. 2015)). Thus, to satisfy its burden, a defendant may rely on a “chain of
`reasoning” that is based on “reasonable” “assumptions.” LaCross v. Knight Transp. Inc., 775 F.3d
`1200, 1201 (9th Cir. 2015). “An assumption may be reasonable if it is founded on the allegations
`of the complaint.” Arias, 936 F.3d at 925; see also Salter v. Quality Carriers, Inc., 974 F.3d 959,
`964 (9th Cir. 2020) (“[I]n Arias we held that a removing defendant’s notice of removal need not
`contain evidentiary submissions but only plausible allegations of jurisdictional elements.”)
`(internal citations and punctuation omitted). That is because “[t]he amount in controversy is simply
`an estimate of the total amount in dispute, not a prospective assessment of defendant’s liability.”
`Lewis v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 627 F.3d 395, 400 (9th Cir. 2010). “[I]n that sense, the amount
`in controversy reflects the maximum recovery the plaintiff could reasonably recover. Arias, 936
`F.3d at 927 (explaining that amount in controversy includes all amounts “at stake” in the litigation
`at time of removal, “whatever the likelihood that [plaintiff] will actually recover them”) (citing
`Chavez v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 888 F.3d 413, 417 (9th Cir. 2018)). “[W]hen a defendant seeks
`federal-court adjudication, the defendant’s amount-in-controversy allegation should be accepted
`when not contested by the plaintiff or questioned by the court.” Dart Cherokee, 574 U.S. at 87.
`Moreover, “when a statute or contract provides for the recovery of attorneys’ fees, prospective
`attorneys’ fees must be included in the assessment of the amount in controversy.” Arias, 936 F.3d
`at 922.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO
`FEDERAL COURT - 12
`Case No.
`
`
`OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 5150 | Seattle, WA 98101
`Phone: 206-693-7057 | Fax: 206-693-7058
`
`

`

`Case 3:25-cv-05328 Document 1 Filed 04/17/25 Page 13 of 23
`
`
`
`41. Moreover, in assessing whether the amount in controversy requirement has been
`satisfied, “a court must ‘assume that the allegations of the complaint are true and assume that a
`jury will return a verdict for the plaintiff on all claims made in the complaint.’” Campbell v. Vitran
`Exp., Inc., 471 F. App’x 646, 648 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Kenneth Rothschild Trust v. Morgan
`Stanley Dean Witter, 199 F. Supp. 2d 993, 1001 (C.D. Cal. 2002)). Indeed, the focus of the Court’s
`inquiry must be on “what amount is put ‘in controversy’ by the plaintiff’s complaint, not what a
`defendant will actually owe.” Korn v. Polo Ralph Lauren Corp., 536 F. Supp. 2d 1199, 1205 (E.D.
`Cal. 2008) (citing Rippee v. Boston Mkt. Corp., 408 F. Supp. 2d 982, 986 (S.D. Cal. 2005)).
`42.
`Here, Plaintiff makes allegations Defendant has consistent practices and policies in
`effect which result in wage and hour violations. (Compl., ¶¶11, 18, 37, 40, 42, 48.) However, the
`only limit Plaintiff places on the frequency of the alleged violations in the Complaint is to state
`they happened “at times.” Thus, it is entirely reasonable for Defendant to assume up to a 100%
`violation rate for each of Plaintiff’s claims. See, e.g., Lewis, 627 F.3d at 398-401; Rea v. Michaels
`Stores Inc., 742 F.3d 1234, 1239 (9th Cir. 2014) (per curiam); Bryant v. NCR Corp., 284 F. Supp.
`3d 1147, 1151 (S.D. Cal. 2018) (holding where plaintiff did not submit any evidence as to violation
`rates, “assumption of a 100 percent violation rate may have been reasonable based on the
`allegations in the Complaint,” which “offered no guidance as to the frequency of the alleged
`violations, only that [d]efendant had ‘a policy and practice’ of meal and rest period violations”);
`Lopez v. Aerotek, Inc., No. SACV 14-00803-(CJGx), 2015 WL 2342558, at *3 (C.D. Cal. May 14,
`2015) (finding “Aerotek could have logically assumed a 100 percent violation rate because
`Plaintiff does not qualify his allegations” and “[a]lthough afforded the opportunity to do so on this
`motion, Plaintiff does not assert or suggest an alternative violation rate on which the Court should
`rely”); Perez v. Rose Hills Company, 2025 WL 811096 (C.D. Cal. March 14, 2025) (approving a
`violation rate of one hour of minimum wage, one hour of overtime, one meal period violation and
`one rest period violation every week of the class period was reasonable based upon allegations in
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`1