96126-7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO,

BARBARAGONZALEZ,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ROSS DRESS FOR LESS, INC.,

d/b/a ROSS STORES, INC.,

Defendant,

NOTICE OF REMOVAL BYDEFENDANT ROSS DRESS FOR LESS,INC.

COMES NOW Defendant, ROSS DRESS FOR LESS, INC. ("ROSS"), by and through

the undersigned counsel, and hereby files its Notice of Removal to this Court ofthe above-styled

action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1441(b) and 1446(a), and 28 U.S.C. section 1332, and as

support thereof, Ross avers as follows;

ROSS is the sole Defendant in a civil action brought against it in the Eleventh

Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, styled Barbara Gonzalez v. Ross Dress

for Less, Inc., D/B/A Ross Stores, Inc„CaseNo. 2020-006729-CA-01. A true and correct copy

of all process, and pleadings served upon ROSS is attached hereto as Composite Exhibit "A" in

compliance with 28 U.S.C.section 1447 (b),

2. This action involves Plaintiff's alleged personal injuries sustained as a result of

an alleged incident at ROSS's store located at 2525 Northeast 10th Court, Homestead, Florida

33033, on or about June 1, 2019 (hereinafter "subject incident"). (See generally Compl.).

Plaintiff's Complaint was served on ROSS on April 28, 2020. (See /d.)

Case 1:20-cv-22225-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 1 of 6
CASE NO. 2020-006729-CA-01

ROSS's Notice of Removal has been timely filed within thirty (30) days after

receipt by ROSS of the initial pleading setting forth the claims for relief upon which removal is

based, See 28 U,S.C, $ 1446(b). No further state coutt proceedings in this litigation have taken

place as ofthe date ofthis Notice of Removal.

This is a civil action over which this Coutt has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to

28 U.S.C. $ 1332. A defendant may remove a state court proceeding to federal court if: (1) the

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interests and costs, (2) the action is

between citizens of different states, and (3) the defendant is not a citizen of Florida.

THE PARTIES ARE COMPLETEL YDIVERSE

5. Plaintiff resides in Miami-Dade County, Florida. (See Compl. f[ 2). To be a

"citizen" of a state within the meaning of the diversity provision, a natural person must be both a

citizen ofthe United States and a domiciliary of a state. Jones v. Laxly Firm ofHill ck Ponton, 141

F. Supp, 2d 1349, 1355 (M.D. Fla. 2001). In determining domicile, a court should consider both

positive evidence and presumptions. Id. One such presumption is that the state in which a person

resides at any given time is also that person's domicile. Id. Therefore, Plaintiff's citizenship in

the State of Florida is assigned for diversity purposes. See McCormt'ck v. Aderholt, 293 F.3d

1254, 1257 (11th Cir. 2002) (explaining that "[c]itzenship is the equivalent to domicile for

purposes of diversity jurisdiction.").

ROSS is a foreign corporation doing business in Florida and incorporated under

the laws of the State of Virginia with its principal place of business in the State of California.

Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C, section 1332(c)(1), Ross is, and was at the time of the

commencement of this action, a citizen of the State of Virginia because it is a corporation

-2-

Case 1:20-cv-22225-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 2 of 6
CASE NO. 2020-006729-CA-01

organized under the laws of the State of Virginia. In addition, Ross is also a citizen of the State

of California because its principal place of business is located at 5130 Hacienda Drive, Dublin,

CA 94568. As evidence to support ROSS's assettion that diversity of citizenship exists in this

case, ROSS has included the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations Detail for

itself (attached hereto as Exhibit B).

THE AMOUNT-IN-CONTROVERSY REQUIREMENT ISSA TISFIED

The amount in controversy in this case exceeds $75,000.00. Although the

Complaint merely sets forth the minimal jurisdictional allegations necessary to invoke the

jurisdiction ofthe state trial court, the Plaintiff's pre-suit demand of $ 1,000,000,00, demonstrates

that the amount in controversy well-exceeds the amount necessary to invoke the jurisdiction of

this District Court.'See generally Plaintiff's Demand Letter dated March 2, 2016 (attached

hereto as Ex. C)).

Moreover, the Plaintiff's letter included a section containing a chart wherein

Plaintiff asserts she has incurred approximately $312,762.84 in medical bills to treat the injuries

she claims were caused by the subject incident (redacted for HIPAA compliance only). (See id.).

9. Based upon the representations made by Plaintiff concerning the total figures at

issue, including the total medical expenses to date, the amount-in controversy requirement is

1 A district coutt may consider a pre-suit demand letter in making its determination regarding satisfaction

of the amount-in-controversy requirement. See AAA Abachman Enters., Inc. v. Stanley Steemer Int'1, Inc,,

268 F. App'x 864, 866 (11th Cir. 2008) (affirming district coutt's consideration of pre-suit demand letter

on removal in concluding the amount-in-controversy requirement was satisfied); Loll&ery V. Ala, Power

Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1213—14 (11th Cir. 2007) (district court may consider the notice of removal and

accompanying documents when deciding upon a motion to remand); Williams v, Best Buy Co., 269 F.3d

1316, 1320 (11th Cir. 2001) (district court may consider evidence outside of the removal petition if the

facts existed at the time of the removal); Katz v. J.C. Penney Corp., No. 09-cv-60067, 2009 WL 1532129,

at ~4 (S.D. Fla. June 1, 2009) ("Therefore, pre-suit settlement offers and demands may be considered in

evaluating whether a case has been properly removed.").

Case 1:20-cv-22225-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 3 of 6
CASE NO, 2020-006729-CA-01

clearly established. Cf. Roe v, M/cheltn N. Am,, Inc,, 613 F.3d 1058, 1062 (11th Cir, 2010)

("IC]ourts may use their judicial experience and common sense in determining whether the case

stated in a complaint meets federal jurisdictional requirements."); see also Moltno v. Wal-Mart

Stores Tx., 535 F. Supp. 2d 805, 806 (W.D, Tex, 2008) (holding customer's pre-suit demand

letter alleging damages of $ 100,000, was sufficient to establish an amount in controversy

exceeding $75,000).

10, Consequently, this Court has original jurisdiction over the aforementioned matter

pursuant to 28 U.S.C.section 1332, as this action involves: (1) citizens of different states, and (2)

an amount in controversy in excess of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00), exclusive of

interest and costs.

THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMEiVTS FOR REMOVAL HA VE BEE1V

COMPLETED BYROSS

11. Pursuant to procedural requirements for removal set forth in 28 U,S.C, section

1446(d), ROSS will file a Notice of Filing Notice of Removal with the Clerk of Court for the

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, and will provide written

notice of this Notice of Removal to all patties via e-service. A copy of the Notice of Filing is

attached hereto, (See State Court Not&ce ofRemoval (attached hereto as Exhibit D)).

12, As stated above, true and correct copies of all documents filed in the state action

are attached hereto as Exhibit "A." See 28 U,S.C. section 1447 (b).

13. Venue in this Court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S,C, section 1441(a), as this action

is being removed from the state court in which it was originally filed —the Circuit Court of the

Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida —to the District Court of the

4

Case 1:20-cv-22225-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 4 of 6
CASE NO. 2020-006729-CA-01

United States for the district and division in which such action is pending, the Southern District

of Florida.

WHEREFORE Defendant, ROSS DRESS FOR LESS, INC., respectfully requests that

the above action now pending in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for

Miami-Dade County, Florida, be removed therefrom to this Honorable Court because the

citizenship of the patties is diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of SeventyFive Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00).

Dated: May 28, 2020

Respectfully submitted,

Is/ Jason A. Glusman

Jason A. Glusman, Esquire (0419400)

JGlusman@wickersmith.corn

William M. Bromley, Esquire (123502)

WBromiey@wickersmith.corn

WICKER SMITH O'ARA MCCOY & FORD, P.A.

Attorneys for Ross Dress for Less, Inc.

515 E. Las Olas Boulevard

Sun Trust Center, Suite 1400

Ft, Lauderdale, FL 33301

Phone: (954) 847-4800

Fax: (954) 760-9353

ftlcrtpleadings@wickersmith, corn

-5-

Case 1:20-cv-22225-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 5 of 6
CASE NO. 2020-006729-CA-01

CKRTIF&ICATE& OF SKRVICK

WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served by electronic

mail on May 27, 2020, on all counsel or parties ofrecord on the Service List below.

s/ Jason A. G1usman

SERVICE& LIST

Ramon O. Crego, Esquire

Rubenstein Law, P.A.

9130 South Dadeland Boulevard, PH

Miami, FL 33156

Telephone: (786) 230-2003

Facsimile: (786) 300-4218

ramon@rubensteinlaw. corn;

ksalazar@rubensteinlaw. corn;

eservice@mbensteinlaw. corn

-6-

Case 1:20-cv-22225-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2020 Page 6 of 6