4842-1571-5771.4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION

CASE NO. _______________________

AMAURYS PEREZ, and other similarly )

situated individuals, )

)

Plaintiff(s), )

)

vs. )

)

THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER )

COMPANY d/b/a Goodyear Commercial )

Tire & Service Centers, )

)

Defendant. )

/

NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Defendant THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY d/b/a Goodyear 

Commercial Tire & Service Centers (“Defendant”), by and through the undersigned counsel and 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1441 and 1446, hereby removes this action from the Circuit 

Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, where the action is now 

pending, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The removal of 

this action is based upon the following:

1. On or about April 17, 2020, Plaintiff AMAURYS PEREZ (“Plaintiff”) filed a civil 

action against the Defendant in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward 

County, Florida, entitled Amaurys Perez v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company d/b/a 

Goodyear Commercial Tire & Service Centers, Case No. CACE-20-006589 (hereinafter referred 

to as the “State Court Action”). 

Case 0:20-cv-60949-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 1 of 9
4842-1571-5771.4 2

2. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) wage and hour 

violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) (Count I); (2) unlawful discharge in 

violation of the FLSA (Count II); (3) workers’ compensation retaliation in violation of Florida 

Statute § 440.205.

3. This action is within the original federal question jurisdiction of the United States 

District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because Plaintiff has asserted one or more federal 

claims under the FLSA. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law 

claim(s) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

4. This action is also within original diversity jurisdiction of this Court, pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. §1332 and 1441 because it is an action between citizens of different states and the 

amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000.

5. A copy of the Complaint and Summons in the State Court Action was served upon 

Defendant on April 22, 2020. This constituted Defendant’s first legal notice of the State Court 

Action for purposes of removal. Thus, this Notice of Removal is timely filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1446(b), within thirty-days (30) from the date on which Defendant received notice of the State 

Court Action. 

6. For the reasons stated above, this action is removable to this Court pursuant to the 

provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1441. 

7. The District and Division embracing the place where such action is pending is the 

United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Fort Lauderdale Division. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1441(a); 28 U.S.C. § 89(c). The Southern District, Fort Lauderdale Division is the 

appropriate venue because Plaintiff alleges that the actions at issue took place in Broward County, 

Florida.

Case 0:20-cv-60949-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 2 of 9
4842-1571-5771.4 3

8. A true and correct copy of all process, pleadings, orders and other papers or exhibits 

of every kind currently on file in the State Court Action are attached hereto as Composite Exhibit 

“A,” as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). 

9. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), Defendant has provided written Notice of the 

Removal to Plaintiff and have filed a copy of this Notice of Removal in the Circuit Court of the 

17th Judicial Circuit, in and for Broward County, Florida. A copy of Defendants’ Notice of Filing 

Notice of Removal is attached hereto as Exhibit “B.” 

II. DIVERSITY JURISDICTION

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441, this Court has diversity jurisdiction over this 

action in that the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds 

$75,000.00. The details in support of diversity jurisdiction are provided below.

A. Diversity of Citizenship Exists

1. In the Complaint, Plaintiff states that he “used to work a Defendant’s place of 

business located at 901 NW 31st Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33311” from “on or about July 18, 

2018 to March 24, 2020.” See Complaint at ¶¶ 4, 7. Accordingly, Plaintiff is a citizen of the State 

of Florida for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.

2. Defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Ohio, with its 

principal place of business in Akron, Ohio. See Declaration of Linda H. Harrold, ¶ 4 (attached as 

Exhibit C). Defendant is not a corporate citizen of Florida for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

3. Accordingly, complete diversity of citizenship existed between Plaintiff and 

Defendant at the time Plaintiff commenced this action in state court and it continues to exist as of 

the time of filing this Notice of Removal.

Case 0:20-cv-60949-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 3 of 9
4842-1571-5771.4 4

B. The Amount in Controversy Exceeds the Statutory Threshold

1. The amount in controversy requirement is clearly satisfied in this case because 

Plaintiff’s purported damages, exclusive of interest and costs, exceed the $75,000 threshold. More 

specifically, in his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he is entitled to relief that includes, but is not 

limited to: back wages from the date of discharge to the present, front wages, attorney’s fees and 

costs, “compensatory mental damages” and any other remedies allowable by law. See Complaint, 

Prayer for Relief sections of Counts I, II and III.

2. In addition to allowing recovery of back pay and overtime, the Fair Labor Standards 

Act allows employees to recover liquidated damages and a reasonable attorney’s fee. 29 U.S.C. 

§216(b)) 

3. When a plaintiff has made an unspecified demand for damages (as in this case), a 

defendant seeking removal based on diversity jurisdiction must prove by a preponderance of the 

evidence that the amount in controversy more likely than not exceeds the jurisdictional 

requirement ($75,000.00). See Tapscott v. MS Dealer Service Corp., 77 F.3d 1353, 1357 (11th Cir. 

1996), abrogated on other grounds by Cohen v. Office Depot, Inc, 204 F.3d 1069 (11th Cir. 2000). 

This is a “relatively low burden.” Fuller v. Exxon Corp., 78 F. Supp.2d 1289, 1297 (S.D. Ala. 

(1999). Where the jurisdictional amount is not facially apparent from the Complaint, the Court 

may consider facts set forth in the removal petition. See Sierminski v. Transouth Financial Corp., 

216 F.3d 945, 949 (11th Cir. 2000).

4. Furthermore, when a plaintiff’s damages are unspecified the “Eleventh Circuit 

precedent permits district courts to make reasonable deductions, reasonable inferences, or other 

reasonable extrapolations from the pleadings to determine whether it is facially apparent that a 

case is removable.” Roe v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 613 F.3d 1058, 1061-62 (11th Cir. 2010). 

Case 0:20-cv-60949-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 4 of 9
4842-1571-5771.4 5

Moreover, courts may use their judicial experience and common sense in determining whether the 

case stated in a complaint meets federal jurisdictional requirements. Id. at 1062. 

5. In his Complaint, Plaintiff purports to bring suit on behalf of himself and “other 

similarly situated individuals.” See Complaint at 1. Plaintiff provides a “good faith estimate” of 

his actual damages and liquidated damages totaling $40,482.00, excluding reasonable attorneys’ 

fees and costs. Id. at 28. However, Plaintiff’s estimate does not include any alleged amounts owed 

to any “other similarly situated individuals” or provide any estimate as to his alleged 

“compensatory mental damages.” 

6. Where, as here, removal is also based on diversity of citizenship, and the initial 

pleading does not demand a specific sum, “the notice of removal may assert the amount in 

controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2); Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 

547, 554, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 8435, at *14 (Dec. 15, 2014) (“[A]s specified in § 1446(a), a 

defendant’s notice of removal need include only a plausible allegation that the amount in 

controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold”).

7. As a general rule, the amount in controversy is determined by considering the 

judgment that would be entered if the plaintiff prevailed on the merits of his or her case as it stands, 

at the time of removal. Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744, 751 (11th Cir. 2010). 

Plaintiff’s allegations reflect that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum 

of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 

8. As indicated above, Plaintiff seeks lost wages in the form of back pay. See generally 

Complaint. At the time of his separation, Plaintiff’s rate of pay was approximately $17.30 per hour, 

equivalent to approximately $35,984.00 per year, excluding any overtime hours worked. See 

Declaration of Linda H. Harrold, ¶ 5.

Case 0:20-cv-60949-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 5 of 9
4842-1571-5771.4 6

9. In calculating potential lost wages for jurisdictional purposes, it is proper to

calculate the figure through the trial date. See Messina v. Chanel, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

71138 (S.D. Fla. Jul. 1, 2011) (appropriate to calculate lost wages from time of termination through 

trial date in examining the jurisdictional minimum); see also Cashman v. Host Int’l, Inc., U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 123164, *4 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 9, 2010) (noting that “[c]onsideration of the additional 

back pay amount from the date of removal to the date of trial, based on a conservative estimate of 

the trial date, is not impermissible speculation”).

10. A reasonable estimate of a trial date would be approximately one year from the date

of removal. From the date of Plaintiff’s separation on March 23, 2020, through a trial date one 

year from filing this Notice of Removal (May 8, 2021), Plaintiff has potential unmitigated lost 

wages of at least $40,136.00, without any accounting for any overtime hours worked, any damages

on behalf of the similarly situated individuals or any compensatory damages sought by Plaintiff. 

See Destefano v. Home Shopping Network, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11701 (M.D. Fla. 2006) 

(annual salary from date of termination through trial established jurisdictional minimum). Thus, 

Defendant exceeds the jurisdictional threshold in Plaintiff’s potential back pay damages alone. 

11. In addition to back pay damages, Plaintiff also seeks the recovery of front pay if he

prevails on his claims. Front pay is a form of equitable relief that the Court may award in lieu of 

reinstatement. See Pollard v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co, 532 U.S. 843, 846 (2001). For 

purposes of determining the amount in controversy, the value of equitable relief “is the monetary 

value of the object of the litigation that would flow to the plaintiff[] if the [requested relief] were 

granted.” Leonard v. Enterprise Rent a Car, 279 F.3d 967, 973 (11th Cir. 2002); see also 

Wineberger v. RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc., 672 Fed. Appx. 914, 917 (11th Cir. 2016) (holding that 

Case 0:20-cv-60949-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 6 of 9
4842-1571-5771.4 7

the “district court correctly considered front pay because the amount in controversy is dependent 

on the facts at the time of removal.”). Thus, entitlement to front pay damages is properly 

considered in assessing the amount in controversy. See Brown v. Cunningham Lindsey U.S., Inc., 

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38862, * 15 (M.D. Fla. 2005) (crediting one year of back pay plus one year 

of front pay, as a conservative measure of potential lost wages in a wrongful termination case). 

An award of one or more years of front pay is not uncommon in employment discrimination cases. 

Munoz v. Oceanside Resorts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1340, 1349 (11th Cir. 2000) (affirming award of one 

year of front pay). Based on Plaintiff’s annual salary at the time of separation, one year of front 

pay is the equivalent of approximately $35,984.00. Thus, in wages alone, Plaintiff’s claims exceed 

the minimum amount in controversy.

12. As noted above, Plaintiff is seeking to recover compensatory damages for “mental 

damages.” Plaintiff’s compensatory damages may include a variety of intangible, non-economic 

losses that potentially exceed the jurisdictional minimum. See generally Bartley v. Starwood Hotel 

& Resorts Worldwide, Inc., No. 07-80637-CIV, 2007 WL 2774250 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 24, 2007) 

(finding that general allegations of pain, mental anguish, scarring, disfigurement, and loss of 

enjoyment of life were sufficient to put defendant on notice that jurisdictional minimum was 

satisfied). Even “garden-variety” compensatory damages in employment termination cases may 

significantly increase the amount in controversy. See e.g., Munoz, 223 F.3d at 1349 (affirming 

award of $150,000 damages for emotional distress on Florida Civil Rights Act claim). 

Additionally, Plaintiff would be entitled to liquidated wages and attorneys’ fees under the FLSA 

should he prevail. See 29 U.S.C. §216(b))

13. The Court can take judicial notice that attorneys’ fees sought in similar employment 

termination cases in the Southern District of Florida routinely approach or exceed the $75,000 

Case 0:20-cv-60949-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 7 of 9
4842-1571-5771.4 8

threshold. See Alshakanbeh v. Food Lion, LLC, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 20746, * 4 (M.D. Fla. 2007) 

(estimate of $40,000 for attorneys’ fees in Jacksonville employment discrimination case was 

“conservative.”) Given the scope of Plaintiff’s allegations, “garden variety” attorneys’ fees of 

$50,000 are a very conservative estimate of this potential component of the amount in controversy 

in this case. 

14. As also noted above, Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant is liable for his 

attorney’s fees. Attorney’s fees are included in the amount-in-controversy if a statute mandates or 

permits recovery of attorney’s fees. See Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 1255, 1265 

(11th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendant violated the Florida’s Workers’

Compensation Law, Florida Statutes Chapter 440. In an action under that Law, “[a] fee, gratuity, 

or other consideration may not be paid for a claimant in connection with any proceedings arising 

under this chapter, unless approved by the judge of compensation claims or court having 

jurisdiction over such proceedings.” Florida Statute §440.34. If Plaintiff were to prevail at trial –

which the Court property assumes for purposes of removal – his claim for attorney’s fees alone 

more likely than not will exceed $75,000. See Cowan v. Geneso, Inc., 2014 WL 3417656 at n. 6 

(M.D. Fla. July 14, 2014) (“the inclusion of attorney’s fees in the calculation of amount in 

controversy is appropriate”).

15. Considering the cumulative value of Plaintiff’s potential claims for back pay, 

compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees, Plaintiff’s claims, though 

vigorously contested by Defendant, more likely than not involve an amount in controversy far in 

excess of $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs. See Virgile v. O.C. Communications of 

California, Case No. 17-60948-Civ-MORENO (Aug. 8, 2017) (denying motion to remand for 

claims brought under the FCRA).

Case 0:20-cv-60949-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 8 of 9
4842-1571-5771.4 9

WHEREFORE, Defendant THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, requests 

that this action, now pending in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for 

Broward County, be removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of 

Florida.

DATED this 12th day of May 2020.

Respectfully submitted, 

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.

Wells Fargo Center

333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2700

Miami, Florida 33131

Tel: (305) 400-7500

Fax: (305) 675-8497

By: /s/ Chelsea A. Lewis 

Sherril M. Colombo, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 948799

E-mail: scolombo@littler.com

Secondary: kljackson@littler.com

Chelsea A. Lewis, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 111607

E-mail: chlewis@littler.com

Secondary: ccano@littler.com

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT

Case 0:20-cv-60949-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2020 Page 9 of 9