UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. _______________ 

NURYS ROJAS SANJURJO, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

TARGET CORPORATION, 

 Defendant. 

_______________________________/ 

NOTICE OF REMOVAL 

The Defendant, Target Corporation, (hereinafter “TARGET”), by and through its 

undersigned counsel, hereby files this Notice of Removal in the above-styled cause to 

the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, on the following grounds: 

1. This cause was originally filed by the Plaintiff in the Circuit Court of the 

Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, as Case No. 20-008724 

CA 01. 

2. This suit is a personal injury civil action in which the Plaintiff, NURYS 

ROJAS SANJURJO, alleged that the Defendant is liable under a negligence theory for 

damages suffered by the Plaintiff. 

3. 28 U.S.C. §1332 confers original jurisdiction on the federal courts for all 

“civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, 

exclusive of interest and costs, and is between...citizens of different States.” 

4. The instant suit is one which the District Court of the United States has 

original jurisdiction since it involves a controversy exclusively between citizens of different 

states and the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000, exclusive of interest 

Case 1:20-cv-22138-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 1 of 8
2 

and costs. 

5. With respect to the diversity of the parties, Plaintiff is a citizen of Florida and 

the Defendant is a citizen of Minnesota. 

6. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff has been domiciled in the State of 

Florida. 

7. “With respect to the diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts, citizenship 

has the same meaning as domicile.” Stine v. Moore, 213 F.2d 446, 448 (5th Cir. 1954). 

“Residence alone is not the equivalent of citizenship, although the place of residence is 

prima facie the domicile; and citizenship is not necessarily lost by protected absence from 

home, where the intention to return remains.” Id. 

8. “Courts have acknowledged the usefulness of certain presumptions with 

respect to a person's domicile.” Audi Performance & Racing, LLC v. Kasberger, 273 F. 

Supp. 2d 1220, 1226 (M.D. Ala. 2003) citing Mitchell v. United States, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 

350, 352, 22 L.Ed. 584 (1874) (listing useful presumptions); McDonald v. Equitable Life 

Ins. Co. of Iowa, 13 F.Supp.2d 1279, 1281 (M.D.Ala.1998). 

9. The first presumption is “that the state in which a person resides at any 

given time is also that person's domicile.” Audi citing McDonald, 13 F.Supp.2d at 1281 

(citing District of Columbia v. Murphy, 314 U.S. 441, 455, 62 S.Ct. 303, 86 L.Ed. 329 

(1941), and Stine v. Moore, 213 F.2d 446, 448 (5th Cir.1954)). Second, “once an 

individual has established a domicile, he remains a citizen there until he satisfies the 

mental and physical requirements of domicile in a new state.” McDonald, 13 F.Supp.2d 

at 1281 (citing McDougald v. Jenson, 786 F.2d 1465, 1483 (11th Cir.1986)). 

10. “The objective facts bearing on an individual's ‘entire course of conduct’ 

Case 1:20-cv-22138-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 2 of 8
3 

determine domicile for diversity jurisdiction purposes.” Jones v. Law Firm of Hill & 

Ponton, 141 F. Supp. 2d 1349, 1355 (M.D. Fla. 2001) citing Stine, 213 F.2d at 448. 

11. “No single factor is conclusive; instead, the Court looks to the ‘totality of 

evidence.’” Id.

12. At all material times Plaintiff has been domiciled in the State of Florida. The 

“presumption” of Plaintiff’s domicile is supported by several sources confirming that 

Plaintiff resides in the State of Florida. 

13. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleged that Plaintiff is “a resident of Miami Dade 

County, Florida.” A copy of the Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 

14. Plaintiff’s counsel sent a Settlement Demand Letter dated January 16, 

2020, which provided copies of medical records that referenced a home address for 

Plaintiff in Miami, Florida. A redacted1 copy of the January 16, 2020, Settlement Demand 

Letter is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 

15. Further, on the date of the Target Incident, Plaintiff NURYS ROJAS 

SANJURJO completed a Guest Incident Report and disclosed a Miami, Florida, home 

address. 

16. “Citizenship is equivalent to ‘domicile’ for the purposes of diversity 

jurisdiction.” Jakobot v. Am. Airlines, Inc., No. 10-61576-CIV, 2011 WL 2457915, at *2 

1

 Plaintiff produced medical records and bills in support of her Settlement Demand Letter. Target attached to this 

Notice a redacted Settlement Demand Letter. Target is not attaching to this Notice the medical records produced by 

the Plaintiff to protect the Plaintiff’s privacy rights pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2, Section 6 of the 

CM/ECF Administrative Procedures for the Southern District of Florida, as well as those rules and regulations 

governed by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Unredacted copies of these documents 

and a complete set of the medical bills and records produced by the Plaintiff are available for review by the Court 

upon request. 

Case 1:20-cv-22138-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 3 of 8
4 

(S.D. Fla. June 20, 2011) citing McCormick v. Aderholt, 293 F.3d 1254, 1257 (11th 

Cir.2002) 

17. Therefore, Plaintiff is domiciled in the State of Florida and is, accordingly, a 

citizen of Florida. Stine, Supra.

18. At the time that both the Complaint and the Notice of Removal were filed in 

this cause, and at all times material hereto, Target was, and is, a Minnesota corporation 

with its principal place of business located in Minneapolis, Minnesota. 

19. “For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a corporation is a citizen of both the 

state where it is incorporated and the state where it has its principal place of business.” 

Werner v. Busch Entertainment Corp., 2006 WL 2644920, 1 (MD Fla. 2006) citing

MacGinnitie v. Hobbs Group LLC, 420 F.3d 1234, 1239 (11th Cir. 2005). 

20. The “nerve center” test is used to determine a corporation’s principal place 

of business when the corporation’s physical activities are dispersed across several states. 

The nerve center test determines a principal place of business by using the location of 

the corporation’s corporate offices or headquarters. See Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 130 S. 

Ct. 1181 (2010). Under the nerve center test, Target’s principal place of business is in 

Minnesota. 

21. Target has filed the necessary documents with the Florida Secretary of 

State to establish that it is a corporation organized under the laws of Minnesota. A 

certified copy of Target’s Certificate of Status issued by the Florida Department of State 

attesting that Target is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota 

is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 

22. The Florida Secretary of State’s records, including those public records 

Case 1:20-cv-22138-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 4 of 8
5 

found online at the Secretary of State’s website at www.sunbiz.org such as the 2020 

Annual Report of Target Corporation, confirm that Target’s principal place of business 

and principal address are in Minnesota. A copy of Target’s 2020 Foreign Profit 

Corporation Annual Report found online at the Secretary of State’s website are attached 

hereto as Exhibit D. 

23. Target’s Senior Corporate Counsel, Daniel Moore, has personal knowledge 

regarding Target’s operations. Daniel Moore’s Affidavit, attached hereto as Exhibit E, 

states inter alia that Target’s corporate Headquarters and Executive Offices were and are 

located in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Daniel Moore further attests that Target’s managerial 

and policymaking functions were and are performed from Target’s Headquarters in 

Minnesota. Additionally, Target’s corporate books, records, and accounts were and are 

created and maintained at Target’s Headquarters in Minnesota. 

24. For purposes of determining jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1332, a 

corporation is treated as a citizen of any state by which it has been incorporated and the 

state where it has its principal place of business. See 28 U.S.C. §1332(c)(1). 

25. Accordingly, Target was and is a Minnesota corporation and is therefore a 

citizen of Minnesota for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. §1332. 

26. Given that Plaintiff is a citizen of Florida and Target is a citizen of Minnesota, 

there is the requisite diversity of citizenship between the parties allowing the Court to take 

jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332. 

27. The matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive 

of interest, costs and attorney’s fees. 

28. When it is not apparent from the face of the Complaint that the jurisdictional 

Case 1:20-cv-22138-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 5 of 8
6 

amount is met, the Court can consider “other papers” received by the defendant to 

determine if the case is removable. See Jade East Towers Developers v. Nationwide 

Mutual Ins. Co., 936 F.Supp. 890 (N.D.Fla.1996). 

29. Before suit was filed Target received from Plaintiff’s counsel a Settlement 

Demand Letter dated January 16, 2020. The Settlement Demand Letter set forth a 

settlement demand of $250,000. A redacted copy of the Settlement Demand Letter is 

attached hereto as Exhibit B. The $250,000 demand establishes that the amount in 

controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold of $75,000. 

30. Plaintiff’s settlement demand of $250,000 is based on Plaintiff’s 

assessment of the value of her damages and her medical professionals' advice. The 

Settlement Demand Letter included a description of Plaintiff’s treatment history and 

copies of her medical records and bills. 

31. The Settlement Demand Letter indicated that Plaintiff is claiming as a result 

of this incident that she sustained injuries to her left elbow for which she had an 

arthroscopic surgery. 

32. The Settlement Demand Letter set forth that Plaintiff is claiming as a result 

of the incident economic damages for medical bills incurred in the amount of $42,928.20 

(with some bills not included in this total). The Settlement Demand Letter also claimed 

that Plaintiff works as a real estate agent and has “missed time from work due to this 

incident and she is expected to have a significant lost wage claim.” The Settlement 

Demand Letter also described Plaintiff’s alleged pain and suffering, physical limitations, 

and inability to perform certain household tasks. 

33. Plaintiff also alleged in the Complaint that she suffered the following 

Case 1:20-cv-22138-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 6 of 8
7 

damages: 

As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned negligence of the 

Defendant, Target Corporation, the Plaintiff, Nurys Rojas Sanjurjo, has 

suffered bodily injury and resulting pain and suffering, disability, 

disfigurement, mental anguish, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, 

expense of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, loss of 

earnings, loss of ability to earn money, and aggravation of a previously 

existing condition. The losses are either permanent or continuing and 

Plaintiff will suffer the losses in the future. 

In that the injuries suffered by the Plaintiff, Nurys Rojas Sanjurjo, are 

continuing in nature, she will continue to suffer pain, loss of wages, physical 

handicap and permanent injury in the future and will be further compelled 

to expend great sums for medical care and related treatment for those 

injuries. 

 

34. Target has established that the amount in controversy is above the $75,000 

jurisdictional threshold. Plaintiff's settlement demand of $250,000 alone establishes the 

amount in controversy. Alternatively, the amount in controversy is established by 

Plaintiff’s past medical expenses, past lost wages, loss of future earning capacity, pain 

and suffering, in addition to the additional categories of claimed damages as alleged in 

the Compliant. 

35. Plaintiff’s pre-suit Settlement Demand provided the first “other papers” 

which allowed the Defendant to ascertain that the case was removable. 

36. This Notice is timely filed. The removal of this cause is authorized by the 

provisions of 28 U.S.C. §1441(b). Taking into consideration the Settlement Demand 

received pre-suit, the case became removable on April 27, 2020, by Target’s receipt of 

the Complaint, at which time it was first ascertained that the case is one which is, or has 

become, removable because the requisite amount in controversy was established. 28 

U.S. C. § 1446(b); See Field v. Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 2001 WL 77101 (M.D. Fla. 2001). 

Case 1:20-cv-22138-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 7 of 8
8 

37. Accordingly, Target has established the requisite diversity of citizenship 

between the parties and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 

38. Written notice of the filing of the Notice of Removal, on this date, has been 

given to Plaintiff through her attorney. A copy of this Notice has, on this date, been filed 

with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade 

County, Florida. 

39. A copy of all process, pleadings, and papers served and filed in the 

aforementioned state court action, which are not attached as other Exhibits to this Notice 

of Removal, is attached to this Notice of Removal as Exhibit F.

WHEREFORE, the Defendant, TARGET CORPORATION, requests that this 

Court assume jurisdiction of this case and approve the Notice of Removal. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on May 22, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing with 

the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, by 

using the CM/ECF system and served by email to: ADAM SCHER LAW GROUP, P.A., 

ADAM G. SCHER, ESQ., ascher@adamscherlaw.com, Counsel for Plaintiff, 1720 

Harrison Street, Suite PH-A, Hollywood, Florida 33020. 

BOWMAN AND BROOKE, LLP 

 Attorneys for Target Corporation 

 /s/ Shawn Libman 

 Charles P. Flick Fla. Bar No. 253324 

 Shawn Y. Libman Fla. Bar No. 10544 

 Two Alhambra Plaza, Suite 800 

 Miami, Florida 33134 

 Phone: 305/995-5600 

 Fax: 305/995-6100 

 Asst: Maria Esteva 305/995-6086 

 Charles.Flick@bowmanandbrooke.com

Shawn.Libman@bowmanandbrooke.com

 Maria.Esteva@bowmanandbrooke.com

Case 1:20-cv-22138-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2020 Page 8 of 8