150 SOUTHEAST SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 1200 · MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 

TELEPHONE: 305-379-3686 · FACSIMILE: 305-379-3690

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.: 

CLAUDIA BOLIVAR,

Plaintiff,

v.

WALMART STORES EAST, L.P.,

Defendant.

/

DEFENDANT, WAL-MART STORES EAST, L.P.’ S NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Defendant, WAL-MART STORES EAST, L.P., (“Wal-Mart”), by and through 

the undersigned counsel, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441 and 1446(b)(1), 

and Rule 81(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby removes to this Court 

the action filed in the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, 

Case No. 2020-008265-CA-01, with full reservation of rights, exceptions and 

defenses, and in support thereof states:

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1. On April 13, 2020, Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a 

Complaint against Wal-Mart1 in the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade 

County, Florida. See Plaintiff’s Complaint attached as Ex. “A.” She later served her 

 

1 Plaintiff’s initial Complaint named the improper corporate defendant. However, on 

May 7, 2020, the Plaintiff filed her Amended Complaint naming the proper 

corporate Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P.

Case 1:20-cv-22112-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 1 of 12
2

150 SOUTHEAST SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 1200 · MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 

TELEPHONE: 305-379-3686 · FACSIMILE: 305-379-3690

Amended Complaint naming the proper corporate Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores 

East, L.P. See Plaintiff’s Complaint attached as Ex. “B.” 

2. The initial Complaint was served on April 29, 2020. See Service of 

Process attached as Ex. “C.”

3. Plaintiff alleges a claim for negligence against Wal-Mart as a result of 

injuries she allegedly sustained on October 7, 2019, while at the Wal-Mart store 

located at 11800 Hialeah Gardens Blvd., Hialeah Gardens, Florida 33018.. See Ex. 

“B” at ¶ ¶ 4-6.

4. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges she slipped and fell on s slippery 

substance that was caused to be on the floor from a leak in the ceiling. Id. at ¶ 10.

5. Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, Wal-Mart breached its duty to provide the 

Plaintiff with a reasonably safe environment by negligently failing to maintain or 

adequately maintain the flooring/premises, thus creating a slip hazard, of which it 

knew or should have known about, and negligently failing to act reasonably under 

the circumstances. Id. at ¶ 12.

6. The Plaintiff is a resident of Miami-Dade County. Id. at ¶ 2.

7. The parties are diverse, as explained in further detail below, as WalMart was at the time of the alleged incident, and currently, a Delaware Limited 

Partnership with its principal place of business in the State of Arkansas.

8. Further, the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, as the 

Plaintiff’s past medical bills from the date of the incident through February 

20, 20 are approximately $30,603.00 and her future medical expenses total 

Case 1:20-cv-22112-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 2 of 12
3

150 SOUTHEAST SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 1200 · MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 

TELEPHONE: 305-379-3686 · FACSIMILE: 305-379-3690

$174,000.00 (conservatively) based on her doctor’s treatment plan. See 

Redacted Medical Bills and Medical Report attached as Ex. “D.”2

9. Additionally, the Plaintiff submitted a pre-suit demand letter dated 

January 7, 2020 requesting to resolve this case for $185,000.00. See Redacted 

Demand Letter attached as Ex. “E.”

10. This matter is therefore removable based on diversity of citizenship of 

the parties, and because the amount in controversy is in excess of $75,000.00 

exclusive of interest, attorney’s fees, and costs. 

11. Wal-Mart attaches hereto and makes a part of this notice a copy of the 

process, pleadings, and other papers filed in the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for 

Miami-Dade County, Florida together with a docket sheet from the Clerk of the 

Court. See Ex. “F.” 

12. Wal-Mart reserves the right to raise all defenses and objections in this 

action after the action is removed to this Court.

II. REMOVAL IS TIMELY

13. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1), Wal-Mart files this Notice of 

Removal within thirty (30) days of the date that it first received service of a copy of 

Plaintiff’s initial Complaint. Plaintiff’s initial Complaint is the initial pleading 

setting forth the claim for relief upon which Plaintiff’s action is based. The thirty 

 

2 Wal-Mart has not filed the entire complement of medical records which Plaintiff 

submitted with in order to protect the Plaintiff’s personal information. Should the 

Court wish to see these documents, Wal-Mart can provide same at the Court’s 

direction.

Case 1:20-cv-22112-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 3 of 12
4

150 SOUTHEAST SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 1200 · MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 

TELEPHONE: 305-379-3686 · FACSIMILE: 305-379-3690

(30) day period commenced on April 29, 2020, when Plaintiff served her initial

Complaint upon Wal-Mart. 

14. Venue exists in the United States District Court for the Southern

District of Florida, Miami Division, because the 11th Judicial District in and for 

Miami-Dade County, where Plaintiff filed her state court Complaint is located in 

Miami-Dade County Florida, which is located within the United States District 

Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division. 

III. THERE IS COMPLETE DIVERSITY WITHIN THE PARTIES

15. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), “[t]he district court shall have original 

jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or 

value of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between – citizens of 

different States.” This action satisfies the complete diversity of citizenship 

requirement of 28 USC § 1332(a)(1). 

A. Citizenship of CLAUDIA BOLIVAR

16. Plaintiff is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida See Ex. “B” at ¶ 2. 

Although Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does not specifically state Plaintiff’s 

citizenship, “[i]t is well established that a party’s residence is prima facie evidence 

of a party’s domicile,” and “[f]or purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a party’s 

domicile is equivalent to his citizenship.” Katz v. J.C. Penney Corp., 2009 WL 

1532129, *3 (S.D.Fla.) (Cohn, J) (internal citations omitted). 

Case 1:20-cv-22112-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 4 of 12
5

150 SOUTHEAST SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 1200 · MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 

TELEPHONE: 305-379-3686 · FACSIMILE: 305-379-3690

17. Here, Plaintiff’s Miami-Dade County, Florida residence is prima facie 

evidence of her domicile which is equivalent to citizenship for purposes of 

establishing diversity in this case. See Katz, 2009 WL 1532129 at *3. 

B. Citizenship of WAL-MART STORES EAST, L.P.

18. At the time of the alleged incident, and currently, Wal-Mart Stores 

East, LP is a limited partnership which currently is, and was at the time of the 

Complaint, a Delaware Limited Partnership with its principal place of business in 

the State of Arkansas. See SunBiz Report attached as Ex. “G.” WSE Management, 

LLC is the general partner and WSE Investment, LLC is the limited partner of 

Wal-Mart Stores East, LP. These are the only partners of Wal-Mart Stores East, 

LP. WSE Management, LLC and WSE Investment, LLC were at the time of filing 

the Complaint, and still are, Delaware limited liability companies. The sole member 

of WSE Management, LLC and WSE Investment, LLC is, and was at the time of 

filing the Complaint, Wal-Mart Stores East, LLC, an Arkansas Limited Liability 

Company. The sole member of Wal-Mart Stores East, LLC is, and was at the time of 

filing the Complaint, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., is, and was at the 

time of filing the Complaint, an incorporated entity under the laws of the State of 

Delaware. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., at the time the Complaint was filed and presently, 

incorporated in the State of Delaware. The principal place of business for all of the 

above mentioned entities (Wal-Mart Stores East, LP; WSE Management, LLC; WSE 

Investment, LLC; Wal-Mart Stores East, LLC; and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.) is, and 

was at the time of filing the Complaint, Bentonville, Arkansas. 

Case 1:20-cv-22112-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 5 of 12
6

150 SOUTHEAST SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 1200 · MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 

TELEPHONE: 305-379-3686 · FACSIMILE: 305-379-3690

IV. AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY

19. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. Although Plaintiff’s 

Complaint does not specify an amount in controversy other than the state court 

$30,000.00 jurisdictional minimum, it is clear from Plaintiff’s (1) past medical 

bills which total $30,603.00, (2) future medical expenses which 

conservatively total $174,000.00, and (3) Plaintiff’s offer to resolve this 

matter at $185,00.00, that her claimed damages exceed the jurisdictional 

minimum in this Court of $75,000.00. See Katz v. J.C. Penney Corp., Inc., 2009 WL 

1532129, *5 (S.D. Fla. June 1, 2009) (concluding the defendant met its jurisdictional 

burden of establishing the amount in controversy based on information received 

from the plaintiffs during the pre-suit time period); see also Mick v. De Vilbiss Air 

Power Co., No. 6:10-CV-1390-ORL, 2010 WL 5140849, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 14, 

2010) (discussing pre-suit documents are competent evidence of the amount in 

controversy). 

20. Where, as here, a plaintiff makes “an unspecified demand for damages 

in state court, a removing defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence 

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

requirement.” 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). 

21. “In the Eleventh Circuit, a district court may consider the complaint 

and any later received paper from the plaintiff as well as the notice of removal and 

Case 1:20-cv-22112-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 6 of 12
7

150 SOUTHEAST SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 1200 · MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 

TELEPHONE: 305-379-3686 · FACSIMILE: 305-379-3690

accompanying documents when deciding upon a motion to remand.” Katz, 2009 WL 

1532129, at *4 (S.D. Fla. June 1, 2009) (citing Lowery v. Alabama Power Co., 483 

F.3d 1184, 1213-1214 (11th Cir. 2007)). “Additionally, a district court may consider 

evidence outside of the removal petition if the facts therein existed at the time of 

removal.” Id (citing Williams v. Best Buy Co., 269 F.3d 1316, 1320 (11th Cir. 2001)

and Sierminski v. Transouth Financial Corp., 216 F.3d 945, 949 (11th Cir. 2000)). 

“Therefore, pre-suit settlement offers and demands may be considered in evaluating 

whether a case has been properly removed.” Id. 

22. The relevant portions of Plaintiff’s specifically detailed pre-suit 

demand (including medical bills and records) conclusively establish that the amount 

in controversy exceeds the $75,000.00 jurisdictional minimum. Specifically, the 

Plaintiff’s pre-suit demand letter which included past medical bills 

totaling $30,603.00, Plaintiff’s medical record from her treating physician 

who recommended future medical care totaling $174,000.00 conservatively, 

and Plaintiff’s demand of $185,000.00 establish that the amount in controversy 

exceeds the $75,000.00 jurisdictional minimum. See Ex. “D” and “E.” In addition to 

Plaintiff’s past and future medical expenses, the Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges 

damages for mental anguish, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life. See Ex. 

“B.” at ¶ 14.

23. Plaintiff’s past medical expenses total $30,603.00. See Ex. “D”

Case 1:20-cv-22112-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 7 of 12
8

150 SOUTHEAST SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 1200 · MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 

TELEPHONE: 305-379-3686 · FACSIMILE: 305-379-3690

24. Additionally, Plaintiff’s treating physician, Dr. Roberto Moya, devised 

a treatment plan and recommendation which included the following future medical 

expenses for:

Medical Procedure Cost Of Medical Procedure 

Estimated By Plaintiff’s Treating 

Physician, Dr. Roberto Moya.

Therapeutic/diagnostic 

lumbar medial branch block

Estimated to cost between $4,000.00 -

$30,000.00

Laminotomy & Discectomy 

or fusion at levels

Estimated to cost between $115,000.00 -

$150,000.00.

Left Knee Arthroscopy Estimated to cost between $55,000.00 -

$80,000.00.

25. These representations sufficiently and conclusively establish by a 

preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the requisite 

$75,000.00 jurisdictional minimum for this Court to retain jurisdiction. Numerous 

district court decisions support this conclusion.

26. For example, in Katz v. J.C. Penney Corp., this Court concluded that 

the removing defendant properly established the amount in controversy by 

addressing information received from Plaintiff’s pre-suit demand package. Katz, 

2009 WL 1532129 at 4. The Court specifically noted it was persuaded that the presuit demand package reflected an honest assessment of damages by plaintiffs 

because, like Plaintiff’s pre-suit demand letter in this case, it was based on medical 

records and bills provided by the plaintiff. Id. 

27. District courts have found that the amount in controversy is satisfied 

by a showing that Plaintiff’s pre-suit demand letter demonstrates Plaintiff’s past 

medical bills exceed $75,000.00. For example, in Stramiello v. Petsmart, Inc., 2010 

Case 1:20-cv-22112-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 8 of 12
9

150 SOUTHEAST SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 1200 · MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 

TELEPHONE: 305-379-3686 · FACSIMILE: 305-379-3690

WL 2136550, at *3 (M.D. Fla. 2010), the court determined the defendant established 

its burden of proving the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.00 where the 

plaintiff’s medical bills alone totaled $108,351.92 and plaintiff alleged that his 

injuries were permanent and she would “surely seek recovery of future medical 

expenses and significant pain and suffering damages.” Id. The court found the 

defendant established complete diversity and that the amount in controversy 

exceeded the minimum jurisdictional requirement; therefore, the court denied the 

plaintiff’s motion to remand. Id. at *5. 

28. Additionally, in Wilson v. Target Corp., the plaintiff submitted a 

pre-suit demand letter indicating she had incurred over $100,000.00 in past medical 

expenses and would incur additional $1 million dollars in future medical expenses 

as a result of his incident. Wilson V. Target Corp., 2010 WL 3632794, at *4 (S.D. 

Fla. 2010). Although the plaintiff’s complaint did not specify the exact amount of 

damages she bought, but only plead that her damages were in excess of $15,000.00, 

the court denied plaintiff’s motion to remand finding plaintiff’s pre-suit demand 

letter and unspecified damages in his complaint were sufficient to demonstrate by a 

preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.00. 

Id. 3

29. Here, Plaintiff’s pre-suit demand letter which includes medical bills

indicating that Plaintiff’s past medical expenses total $30,603.00 and her 

 

3 The court also considered plaintiff’s refusal to admit or deny that damages exceeded 

$75,000.00 as evidence regarding the amount in controversy.

Case 1:20-cv-22112-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 9 of 12
10

150 SOUTHEAST SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 1200 · MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 

TELEPHONE: 305-379-3686 · FACSIMILE: 305-379-3690

future medical expenses will be $174,000.00 (conservatively), is an honest 

assessment of her claimed damages as it is based on Plaintiff’s past and future 

medical bills, as well as Plaintiff’s alleged injuries and future medical care 

expenses. See Katz, 2009 WL 1532129 at 4. 

30. Like Stramiello and Wilson, Plaintiff’s pre-suit demand letter includes 

medical expenses incurred by the Plaintiff which exceed $75,000.00, in addition to 

medical records which indicate the plaintiff will incur future medical expenses for 

medical care. Wilson, 2010 WL 3632794, at *4; Stramiello, 2010 WL 2136550, at *3. 

This evidence demonstrates the Plaintiff’s claimed damages in the instant case far 

exceed $75,000.00. Accordingly, Wal-Mart has shown by a preponderance of the 

evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum, 

rendering removal proper. 

V. CONCLUSION

This action is removable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441 and 1446 

because there exists complete diversity in this matter as the Plaintiff and Wal-Mart 

are citizens of different states, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00 

exclusive of interest, fees, and costs. Upon filing of this initial Notice of Removal, 

Wal-Mart provided written notice to Plaintiff, through her attorneys of record, and 

the Clerk of the Circuit Court for the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade 

County, Florida, of its Notice of Removal. 

WHEREFORE, Defendant, WAL-MART STORES EAST, L.P., (“Wal-Mart”), 

respectfully requests the Notice of Removal be accepted as good and sufficient as 

Case 1:20-cv-22112-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 10 of 12
11

150 SOUTHEAST SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 1200 · MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 

TELEPHONE: 305-379-3686 · FACSIMILE: 305-379-3690

required by law, and that the aforesaid action, Case No. 2020-008265-CA-01, on the 

docket of the Court for the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, 

Florida, be removed from that Court to the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, and that this Court assume full and 

complete jurisdiction thereof and issue all necessary orders and grant all general 

equitable relief to which Wal-Mart is entitled. 

Dated: May 20, 2020

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Patricia Concepcion, Esq.

Jerry D. Hamilton, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 970700

jhamilton@hamiltonmillerlaw.com

William Edwards, Esq.

wedwards@hamiltonmillerlaw.com

Florida Bar No. 43766

Patricia Concepcion, Esq.

Florida Bar No.109058

pconcepcion@hamiltonmillerlaw.com

HAMILTON, MILLER & BIRTHISEL, LLP

150 Southeast Second Avenue, Suite 1200 

Miami, Florida 33131

Telephone: (305) 379-3686

Attorneys for Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P.

Case 1:20-cv-22112-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 11 of 12
12

150 SOUTHEAST SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 1200 · MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 

TELEPHONE: 305-379-3686 · FACSIMILE: 305-379-3690

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on May 20, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing document 

with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing is being served this day 

on all counsel of record or pro se parties identified on the following Service List in the manner 

specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some 

other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive electronically 

notices of Electronic Filing.

/s/ Patricia Concepcion

 Patricia Concepcion, Esq.

SERVICE LIST

 Attorney for Plaintiff

Carlos O Gomez, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 140554

Law Offices of Carlos O. Gomez, P.A.

102 East 49th Street

Hialeah, Florida 33013

Telephone: 305-698-3421

Facsimile: 305-698-1930

Primary E-Mail: cogomezpa@aol.com

Secondary E-Mail: sandor@cogomezlaw.com

Case 1:20-cv-22112-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 12 of 12