UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PALM BEACH DIVISION

 CASE NO.:

15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

Court Case No.: 50-2020CA005507XXXXMB

WILLIAM DAMELIO,

Plaintiff,

v.

TARGET CORPORATION and ROTOROOTER SERVICES COMPANY,

Defendants.

_________________________________/

DEFENDANT, TARGET CORPORATION’S, NOTICE OF REMOVAL WITH

INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Defendant/Petitioner TARGET CORPORATION (“TARGET”), by and through its 

undersigned counsel and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1332, 1441, 1446, Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(c), 

respectfully petitions this Court for removal of the above-captioned action from the Fifteenth 

Judicial Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County, Florida to the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Florida, Palm Beach Division [Ex. 1: Civil Cover Sheet]. In support 

thereof, TARGET states as follows:

1. Plaintiff filed this state court action styled William Damelio v. Target Corporation

and Roto-Rooter Services Company, Case No.: 50-2020CA005507 in the Fifteenth Judicial 

Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, on May 19, 2020 alleging personal injuries as a 

result of fall “when he sat on a defective toilet in the men’s restroom” at the Delray Beach Target 

store on September 20, 2018. TARGET was served with the Complaint on May 26, 2020. [Ex.2: 

Summons and Complaint directed to Target: See ¶4,5]

2. On June 5, 2020, TARGET filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff’s

Complaint. [Ex. 3: Target Answer]

Case 9:20-cv-80960-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2020 Page 1 of 15
3. On May 26, 2020, ROTO-ROOTER SERVICES COMPANY (“ROTOROOTER”) was served with the Complaint. [Ex. 4: Return of Service as to Roto-Rooter]

4. On June 15, 2020, ROTO-ROOTER filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to 

Plaintiff’s Complaint. [Ex. 5: Roto-Rooter Answer]. ROTO-ROOTER consents to removal of this 

case to Federal Court. [Ex. 6: Roto-Rooter consent to remove]

5. The Complaint does not allege the residence or citizenship of Plaintiff, WILLIAM

DAMELIO (“DAMELIO”). However, public record from The Palm Beach County Property 

Appraiser confirms DAMELIO is a resident of Palm Beach County Florida and owns a home 

located at 796 Belle Grove Lane, West Palm Beach, FL 33411. DAMELIO purchased the home 

in January 2018 and qualifies for homestead exemptions. [Ex. 7: Plm. Bch. County Property 

Appraiser’s Records]. Additionally, medical billing confirms mail is directed to DAMELIO at his 

Belle Grove address. [Ex. 8: Billing from Cobblestone Chiropractic identifying the “Mail To 

Address” as 796 Bell Grove Lane]. DAMELIO is a citizen of the State of Florida.

6. TARGET is a foreign corporation incorporated in Minnesota with its principle 

place of business in Minnesota. TARGET is a citizen of the state of Minnesota [Ex.9: Target 

Annual Report].

7. ROTO-ROOTER is a foreign corporation incorporated in Ohio with its principle 

place of business in Ohio. ROTO-ROOTER is a citizen of the state of Ohio [Ex. 10: Roto-Rooter 

Annual Report].

8. Count I of the Complaint asserts a “Negligence Claim Against Target” and seeks 

damages against TARGET. Count II asserts a “Negligence Claim Against Roto-Rooter” and seeks 

damages against ROTO-ROOTER. [Ex.2]

9. As to damages, the Complaint states as follows:

Case 9:20-cv-80960-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2020 Page 2 of 15
WILLIAM DAMELIO 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, and aggravation 

of a previously existing condition. The losses are either permanent or continuing, 

and Plaintiff will suffer the losses in the future. [Ex.2: ¶12,19]

10. DAMELIO’S Complaint seeks damages in excess of Thirty Thousand Dollars 

($30,000.00).

11. By correspondence dated May 7, 2019, DAMELIO’S counsel provided TARGET 

with a settlement demand package accompanied by over 150 pages of medical records and partial 

billing from some of the providers who have treated DAMELIO for the injuries he relates to the 

incident at Target. Voluminous medical records and billing attached to the demand include Central 

Palm Beach Surgery Center, Care Spot Urgent Care Center, Dr. Mammales of Cobblestone 

Chiropractic & Wellness, Dr. Bistline office notes, Interventional Pain Services of Palm Beach 

procedural notes, Spine and Orthopaedic Specialists of Central Florida (Dr. Smith, Dr. Katz, Dr. 

Baynham office notes), and diagnostic MRI reports of the lumbar spine, left shoulder, and left 

biceps tendon from The Imaging Centers.

12. The demand contains a thoughtful and thorough liability analysis and sets forth a 

detailed damage evaluation. The demand breaks down in detail TARGET’S “negligence” and 

highlights the magnitude of the event, the mechanism of injury, the extent of DAMELIO’S

injuries, the significance of his pain, suffering, and limitations, the providers who treated him, and 

the medical care he has received to date. [Ex. 11: May 7, 2019 Demand Ltr.].

13. As to the magnitude of the event, the demand states as follows [Ex.11]:

Please be advised that our client, William Damelio, sustained very serious, life-altering 

permanent injuries as a result of a slip and fall which occurred on or about 1:00 PM 

on September 20, 2018, at Target in Delray Beach, Florida. As you are or should be 

aware, our client slipped after sitting on a toilet, after the toilet broke off of the wall. 

As a result, our client sustained grievous and permanent injuries to his left side and 

lower back.

Case 9:20-cv-80960-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2020 Page 3 of 15
14. The “Liability” section of the demand provides an in-depth, thoughtful, and 

comprehensive evaluation, and describes the “heightened standard of care Target owed to 

DAMELIO” backed with supporting legal authorities and in typed bold face italicized font 

provides as follows [Ex.11]:

Our theories of liability for the case at hand rest on the legal theories of negligence 

and premises liability. The heightened standard of care that Target woes to its business 

invitees was breached when it allowed the broken and hazardous toilet to be present 

for a sufficient amount of time as to cause the serious injuries and damages more fully 

detailed below. As a business inviter, Target owed duties to William to both keep its 

property in a reasonably safe condition and to warn her of any concealed dangers 

which Target should have known about. See Owens v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 802 

So.2d 315 (2001). These duties were breached when the Target property at issue was 

indeed not kept in a safe condition. Notably, the provisions of Fla. Stat. 768.0755 

are entirely inapplicable as the cause of William’s fall was not a transient 

substance. As such, he is under no legal obligation to prove actual or constructive 

notice of the condition on the property owner’s behalf; rather, in the instant case 

the property owner has an affirmative duty to its business invitees to exercise 

reasonable care in the maintenance, inspection, repair, warning and/or mode of 

operation of its business premises. See Owens , Markowitz v. Helen Homes of Kendall 

Corp., 826 So.2d 256 (2002), Fla. Stat. 768.0755 (2010). Target plainly breached 

these duties by failing to properly maintain and inspect the grounds of its property. 

Given the applicable law in this case, it is clear liability for the instant loss will fall 

upon Target. (emphasis as in the Demand Letter)

15. DAMELIO contends he sustained “grievous and permanent injuries to his left side 

and lower back.” DAMELIO details his complaints along with the treatment received in his

Demand as follows:

Soon after our client fell onto the floor, continued pain and discomfort to William’s 

left shoulder, left arm, and lower back, amongst other complaints, prompted our client 

to begin a regular course of physical therapy and medical care from which our client 

has yet to have been discharged. William’s extensive injuries include but are not 

limited to: L3/4 disc herniation with nerve root approximation; L4/5 disc 

herniation with nerve root impingement extending onto the L5 endplate; left 

shoulder AC joint fluid and edema; left shoulder supraspinatus tendon articular 

surface tear; left elbow joint effusion; left humerus perimysial edema of the 

pronator teres muscle; left shoulder pain; lower back pain; neck spasms; back 

spasms; thoracic segmental and somatic dysfunction; lumbar segmental 

dysfunction; pelvic segmental dysfunction; and facet joint syndrome, for which 

Case 9:20-cv-80960-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2020 Page 4 of 15
our client has already undergone an L3-5 medial branch block; L4-S1 transforaminal 

epidural steroid injection; and a left shoulder PRP injection, and for which further 

surgical intervention looks probable. As a result of the injuries and needed medical 

care our client’s medical bills alone, which are in excess of $39,012.00, are likely to 

increase significantly into the future along with their general damages. [Ex.11 

(emphasis per the Demand Letter)]

16. The bold-face type highlights that DAMELIO’S injuries to his lumbar spine, neck, 

thoracic spine, left shoulder, left elbow, and pelvis and advises DAMELIO’S medical bills are in 

excess of $39,012.00. Counsel affirms that this amount is expected to “increase significantly into 

the future along with DAMELIO’S general damages” presumably because DAMELIO’S 

“continued pain and discomfort” remains to date. Based upon a detailed and thorough liability, 

medical, and damages analysis, supported by voluminous medical records and billing, 

DAMELIO’S counsel valued the claim “at $250,000.00.” Counsel references his firm’s Tax ID 

and sets forth specific directions as to whom the settlement check “should be made payable to” as 

well as to the “office address and location” for delivery of the check. Counsel’s unambiguous and 

unequivocal demand directed to Target provides as follows:

Given the severity of the injuries sustained, our client hereby demands $250,000.00 in 

settlement of this matter, to be tendered by 3:00 PM May 21, 2019, to our office

located at 925 S. Federal Highway, 6th Floor, Boca Raton, FL 33432. 

 [Ex. 11: Demand Letter (emphasis as provided)]

17. As part of the settlement demand package, Counsel produced voluminous medical 

records setting forth DAMELIO’S significant complaints and medical treatment as follows:

• On September 23, 2018, DAMELIO presented to Dr. Urbe for an urgent care evaluation 

for injuries due to a fall three days prior. DAMELIO complained of pain to his left 

shoulder, left arm, and an exacerbation of lumbar pain due to his fall. He received a 

Ketorolac injection and was provided a prescription for Meloxicam to manage his 

symptoms.

• On September 29, 2018, DAMELIO presented to Dr. Mammales D.C. with continued 

sharp pain to his left shoulder and low back which he contributed to his fall at Target. 

The Ketorolac injection did not relieve his symptoms as he reported shoulder pain 9/10 

and lumbar pain 7/10 in severity. DAMELIO told Dr. Mammales that the pain interferes 

with his daily activities, is worse with any movement, and interrupts his sleep. Dr. 

Case 9:20-cv-80960-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2020 Page 5 of 15
Mammales found DAMELIO’S prognosis to be “fair” provided that he “adheres to the 

prescribed treatment plan” consisting of therapeutic exercise, modalities, procedures, 

chiropractic adjustments, lumbar traction, electric muscle stimulation, heat therapy, 

massage/manual therapy. DAMIELO was advised to undergo treatment three times a 

week.

• DAMELIO underwent 42 therapeutic and chiropractic sessions with Dr. Mammales 

from September 29, 2018 through February 12, 2019. At his February 12, 2019 visit, 

DAMELIO complained of continued shoulder pain 5/10, left bicep pain 5/10, and 

worsening low back pain of 6/10. DAMELIO told Dr. Mammales his activities are 

significantly affected by his pain and symptoms. Treatment was to continue two times 

a week.

• An October 30, 2018 left shoulder MRI was positive for pathology which could relate to 

a labral injury. AC joint fluid and edema was observed in the distal clavicle consistent 

with contusion/stress reaction; supraspinatus tendinopathy with an articular surface 

partial tear was observed by reading radiologist Brian Young. 

• An October 30, 2018 MRI of the lumbar spine revealed a L3/4 disc bulge impinging on 

the thecal sac and a L4/5 posterior disc herniation associated with an annular fissure/tear 

impinging upon the thecal sac and left L5 nerve root.

• A December 4, 2018 MRI of the left biceps tendon revealed tenosynovitis.

• As to the back, DAMELIO was evaluated and treated by neurosurgeon Dr. Smith on 

November 27, 2018 and December 18, 2018 for severe, intermittent, sharp radiating back 

pain 10/10 which he related to “a fall injury on September 20, 2018.” DAMELIO was 

referred to pain management to undergo lumbar medial branch blocks. Dr. Smith further 

recommended an anterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery at L5/S1 to relieve his pain. 

• On December 18, 2018, DAMELIO was evaluated by interventional pain management 

physician Dr. Bistline for sharp/stabbing, dull, aching, severe back pain 8-9/10. 

DAMELIO underwent bilateral medial branch nerve block injections at levels L3, L4, 

L5 with Dr. Bistline.

• As to the left shoulder and elbow, DAMELIO was evaluated and treated by orthopedic 

physician Dr. Katz on December 12, 2018, December 18, 2018, January 9, 2019, March 

6, 2019, and March 19, 2019. DAMELIO complained of pain and weakness to his left 

shoulder, left biceps, and left elbow which exacerbated with overhead activity, heavy 

lifting, and carrying. MRIs were ordered; physical therapy and occupational therapy 

were recommended. DAMELIO was provided prescriptions for Mobic and

Cyclobenzaprine to control and manage his symptoms. DAMELIO endured platelet rich

plasma injections to his left shoulder.

• A January 3, 2019 MRI of the left upper extremity/elbow revealed tendinosis of the 

common extensor and flexor tendons and the distal biceps tendon.

• On February 7, 2019, DAMELIO underwent an orthopedic spine evaluation for pain to 

his neck, back, and left shoulder which occurred after a fall in the bathroom of a store on 

September 20, 2018. DAMELIO reported the toilet was “ripped out of the wall causing 

water to be on the floor.” DAMELIO complained of left sided, dull, aching neck pain

8-9/10 in severity which radiated to his left shoulder and was associated with numbness 

and tingling. DAMELIO told Dr. Baynham his low back pain was sharp, aching, and 8-

9/10 in severity. Based upon his examination and review of DAMELIO’S MRI imaging, 

Dr. Baynham recommended a trial of transforaminal L5/S1 epidural injections. Dr. 

Case 9:20-cv-80960-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2020 Page 6 of 15
Baynham’s opined that DAMELIO would benefit from “an L5/S1 anterior lumbar 

interbody fusion surgery” as a “simple discectomy is unlikely to alleviate his symptoms.”

• On March 14, 2019, DAMELIO underwent bilateral transforaminal epidural steroid 

injections at L4/5 with Dr. Baynham at Central Palm Beach Surgery Center. 

[Composite Ex.12: Significant Medical Records]

18. Medical billing from some (but not all) of DAMELIO’S providers was included with 

Counsel’s demand package and includes the following charges to date:

Provider Charge

CareSpot Urgent Care (Dr. Uribe) $ 212.00

Cobblestone (Dr. Mammales D.C.) $18,300.00

Interventional Pain Mgmt (Dr. Bistline) $ 7,839.00

Melborne Spine & Orthopedics of Central Fla.

(Dr. Smith)

$ 1,486.00

Spine & Orthopedic Specialists of S. Fla. 

(Dr. Katz, Dr. Baynham)

$10,020.00

Central Palm Beach Surgery Center Not Provided

The Imaging Center $ 7,800.00

Partial Billing Totaling $45,657.00

[Composite Ex. 13: Partial Medical Bills]

19. Notwithstanding years of conservative treatment, including chiropractic care, 

therapeutic exercises, physical therapy, occupational therapy, prescription medications, diagnostic 

imaging, injections to his spine and left shoulder, DAMELIO did not obtain relief from his

“continued pain and discomfort.” Spinal surgery as a treatment option was recommended by two 

of DAMELIO’S physicians. Per the medical records, DAMELIO describes how the extent of his

injuries affects his lifestyle and limits his activities all which DAMELIO relates to his fall at 

Target. The supporting medical records and billing which confirms DAMELIO has undergone 

further treatment with Dr. Mammales demonstrates that DAMELIO continues to “suffer from his 

serious, life altering, and permanent injuries.” 

20. In order to provide the Court with a baseline for evaluating whether more than 

$75,000.00 is in controversy, TARGET attaches the Affidavit of Undersigned Counsel. [Ex. 14]. 

As set forth therein, Undersigned has performed a search of verdicts in courts throughout the State 

Case 9:20-cv-80960-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2020 Page 7 of 15
of Florida relating to injuries similar to those allegedly sustained by DAMELIO. Those include 

injuries to the back and left shoulder along with a future surgery recommendation. That search 

has revealed multiple verdicts which exceed $75,000.00. Based upon more than thirty-eight (38) 

years of experience as a trial attorney in South Florida and Undersigned’s review of DAMELIO’S 

medical records produced to date, together with DAMELIO’S claims for bodily injury, pain and 

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

expense of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, and aggravation of a 

previously existing condition all of which DAMELIO claims are permanent or continuing in nature 

and that he will suffer these losses in the future, the amount in controversy in this case clearly 

exceeds the $75,000.00 threshold necessary to invoke federal diversity jurisdiction [Ex. 14].

21. TARGET’S Notice of Removal has been filed within 30 days of receipt of the initial 

pleading in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §1446.

22. Venue is proper in the Palm Beach Division of this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§1446 as the state court action originated in Palm Beach County.

23. Copies of all process, pleadings and other papers filed in the State Court

proceedings have been filed with the Court as required by 28 U.S.C. §1446 (a). Copies of these 

documents are attached as composite Exhibit 15.

24. TARGET has filed the removal fee contemporaneously with its Removal Petition.

25. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1446(d), TARGET has provided written notice of the

removal of the State Court Action to DAMELIO’S counsel, counsel for ROTO-ROOTER, and 

has filed a Notice of Filing this Notice of Removal with the State Court. A true and correct copy 

of the Notice of Filing Target’s Notice of Removal is attached hereto as Exhibit 16.

Case 9:20-cv-80960-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2020 Page 8 of 15
MEMORANDUM OF LAW

26. As a predicate for removal, a removing defendant must demonstrate that the district 

court has original jurisdiction of the action pending in state court. Leonard v. Kern, 651 F. Supp. 

263 (S.D. Fla. 1986). The burden is on the party requesting removal to federal court to show that 

it has met all of the applicable statutory requirements. Wright v. Continental Casualty Co., 456 F. 

Sup. 1075, (N.D. Fla. 1978). A defendant may introduce its own affidavits, declarations or other 

documentation to meet its burden. Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, 608 F. 3d 744 (11th Cir. 2010). 

27. Based upon the removal evidence, including Counsel’s $250,000.00 settlement

demands supported by voluminous medical records and partial billing of “at least $45,657.00,” 

DAMELIO’S claimed damages, and Undersigned’s affidavit filed contemporaneously herewith, 

TARGET has met its burden and has fully complied with the statutory requirements for removal 

of this matter to Federal Court. Compete diversity of citizenship exists between DAMELIO

(Florida), TARGET (Minnesota), and ROTO-ROOTER (Ohio) and the amount in controversy 

exceeds of $75,000.00. The Court possesses jurisdiction over this matter.

The Amount in Controversy Exceeds $75,000.00

28. DAMELIO alleges that TARGET and ROTO-ROOTER are responsible for his

injuries and seeks damages arising from the September 20, 2018 incident. Per the May 17, 2019

settlement demand package, DAMELIO directed a demand requesting that TARGET “tender a 

check for $250,000.00.” The demand is supported by over 150 pages of medical records which 

confirm the treatment DAMELIO has received for the injuries he relates to the incident at Target. 

The demand details the extent of DAMELIO’S claimed injuries, the physicians who have treated 

him and the medical care he has received to date. The demand highlights the magnitude and degree 

of DAMELIO’S pain and complaints for which spinal surgery has been recommended; future 

Case 9:20-cv-80960-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2020 Page 9 of 15
medical care and treatment is likely as “DAMELIO continues with pain and discomfort.” The 

demand further emphasizes that DAMELIO activities of daily living have been adversely affected 

due to the injuries which he relates to the incident at Target. DAMELIO’S unequivocal 

$250,000.00 settlement demand (directed solely to Target) constitutes legally certain evidence that 

he seeks damages in excess of $75,000.00. Bowen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2010 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 39433 (M.D. Fla. 2010).

29. The demand provides a reasonable and cogent liability analysis, a detailed 

description of the mechanics of DAMELIO’S fall, a thorough outline of DAMELIO’S injuries and 

the medical treatment he has received. Although pre-suit offers may not be determinative in and 

of themselves as to the amount in controversy, the detail of DAMELIO’S pre-suit demand

unquestionably demonstrates that the claimed damages exceed the $75,000.00 threshold for 

diversity jurisdiction. See Wilson v. Target, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96399 (S.D. Fla. 2010) citing

La Rocca v. Stahlheber, 676 F.Supp. 2d 1347, 1349 (S.D. Fla. 2009). 

30. Counsel’s unambiguous and unequivocal $250,000.00 demand is supported with 

voluminous medical records and billing which demonstrates that Counsel and DAMELIO value 

this case in excess of $75,000.00. By contrast, if DAMELIO was seeking less than $75,000.00 in 

damages, he would have made that clear in his demand directed to TARGET.

31. Noteworthy, Counsel’s settlement demand package confirms that both 

neurosurgeon Dr. Smith and orthopedic spine surgeon Dr. Baynham recommend a lumbar fusion 

surgery as a treatment option. Also significant, per Dr. Baynham, “a simple discectomy is unlikely 

to alleviate his symptoms.” Although the surgery has yet to occur, it is reasonable to conclude that 

at a minimum, the recommendation and need for surgery substantiates DAMELIO’S claim for 

pain and suffering along with the likelihood the he will incur additional damages in the future. 

Case 9:20-cv-80960-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2020 Page 10 of 15
Farley v. Variety Wholesalers, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57740 (M.D. Fla. 2014). Given the 

continuing nature of DAMELIO’S lumbar pain, coupled with the claim that he has obtained no 

relief through conservative measures and that he still continues to treat for his pain and symptoms, 

Counsel’s assertion that surgery is a consideration for the next step in treatment is fair and 

reasonable; as such, DAMELIO’S future damages must be taken into consideration in evaluating 

the amount in controversy herein. See: Farley. 

32. DAMELIO’S Complaint seeks damages for bodily injury, pain and suffering, 

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

hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, and aggravation of a previously existing 

condition. DAMELIO contends his injuries are permanent or continuing in nature and that he will 

suffer additional losses in the future. [Ex. 2]. 

33. Settlement offers that provide specific information to support a plaintiff’s claim for 

damages suggests that the plaintiff is offering a reasonable assessment of the value of his claim.

Mullen v. GE, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196976 (M.D. Fla. 2013). In Mullen, Judge Howard 

observed that “for purposes of jurisdiction, what is actually recoverable is irrelevant; instead, it is 

the amount Plaintiff is seeking, and therefore putting in controversy, that is determinative. The 

plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits is largely irrelevant to the court’s jurisdiction because 

the pertinent question is what is in controversy in the case, not how much the plaintiff is ultimately 

likely to recover.” Mullen, quoting Pretka, supra and Amoche v. Guarantee Trust Life Ins. Co., 

556 F.3d 41, 51 (1st Cir. 2009). 

34. In Bowen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39433 (M.D. 

Fla. 2010), Bowen filed her state court complaint against State Farm seeking damages in excess 

of $15,000.00 for injuries she sustained in a motor vehicle collision. State Farm timely removed 

Case 9:20-cv-80960-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2020 Page 11 of 15
the case to Federal Court relying upon counsel’s written demand letter demanding $100,000.00;

Judge Fawsett denied Bowmen’s remand motion and held that State Farm met its burden of 

establishing by a preponderance of the evidence the amount in controversy was in excess of 

$75,000.00. Bowen’s demand letter stated unequivocally, ‘[it] is our opinion that a reasonable 

settlement value for Vicki Bowen’s claim for bodily injuries, impairments, damages, and losses is 

well in excess of the policy limits [$100,000] for which we hereby make demand.” Judge Fawsett 

affirmed that Plaintiff’s unequivocal demand with a specific dollar amount is sufficient to 

constitute “legally certain evidence that Plaintiff seeks damages in excess of $75,000.00.” Bowen. 

Based upon the unequivocal $100,000.00 demand and the allegations contained in Bowen’s 

Complaint (including claims for pain and suffering, mental anguish, and loss of capacity for the 

enjoyment of life), Judge Fawsett held that State Farm met its jurisdictional burden to establish 

that the amount in controversy was in excess of $75,000.00. 

35. As in Bowen, Counsel’s unequivocal demand seeking $250,000.00 to resolve this 

matter constitutes “legally certain evidence that Plaintiff seeks damages in excess of $75,000.00.” 

Id. Additionally, Counsel advises that DAMELIO’S treating physicians have recommended spinal

surgery as a treatment option. The Complaint seeks to recover damages for bodily injury, pain 

and suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, 

expense of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, and aggravation of a 

previously existing condition. The Complaint alleges DAMELIO’S injuries are permanent and

continuing in nature and that he will suffer such losses and impairments in the future. [Ex. 2]. 

36. In Mangano v. Garden Fresh Restaurant Corp., 2015 WL 5953346 (M.D. Fla. 

2015), Mangano filed her “run-of-the-mill” slip and fall case in state court. Mangano’s husband 

also brought a separate loss of consortium claim. Both claims asserted damages in excess of 

Case 9:20-cv-80960-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2020 Page 12 of 15
$15,000.00. Although medical expenses were in excess of $190,000.00, Medicare paid only 

$39,289.00 to resolve Mangano’s medical expenses in full. In finding that the amount in 

controversy was satisfied, Judge Steele stated as follows:

Mrs. Mangano’s medical bills are not the only source of damages claimed by Plaintiffs. 

Mr. Mangano has brought his own loss of consortium claim in which he alleges damages 

in excess of $15,000. As a result, Plaintiffs necessarily concede that the amount in 

controversy is at least $54,289 ($39,289 + $15,000) plus any damages Mrs. Mangano 

intends to seek in addition to recovering her medical expenses. It is entirely plausible 

that she will reasonably seek pain and suffering and other general damages in excess of 

$20,171.

32. As in Mangano, DAMELIO’S medical bills are not the only source of his claimed 

damages. The Complaints also seeks damages, inter alia, for pain and suffering, disability, 

disfigurement, mental anguish, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life all of which is detailed 

in the Complaint and Counsel’s demand. DAMELIO “necessarily concedes” the amount in 

controversy is at least the sum of her identified medical bills $45,657.00. Additionally, DAMELIO 

seeks damages from ROTO-ROOTER for his alleged injuries. As in Mangano, DAMELIO’S 

general damages clearly exceed $29,343.00. 

33. Based upon on all of the foregoing, the amount in controversy in this matter is 

clearly in excess of the jurisdictional threshold limit of $75,000.00.

34. A removing defendant is not required to prove the amount in controversy beyond 

all doubt or to banish all uncertainty about it. Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744 

(11th Cir. 2010). A removing defendant need only show that the amount in controversy more likely 

than not exceeds the jurisdictional requirement. Roe v. Michelin North America, Inc., 613 F.3d 

1058 (11th Cir. 2010). Based on the foregoing, removal of this matter is proper; TARGET has 

demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy herein exceeds 

the jurisdictional requirement set forth in 28 U.S.C. §1332. 

Case 9:20-cv-80960-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2020 Page 13 of 15
CONCLUSION

35. This action is removable to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332 because there 

is diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds the 

$75,000.00 threshold for federal jurisdiction. DAMELIO is a Florida citizen, TARGET is a 

Minnesota corporation, and ROTO-ROOTER an Ohio corporation. Diversity jurisdiction exists 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332, as there is complete diversity between DAMELIO, TARGET, and 

ROTO-ROOTER. Strawbridge v. Curtis, 7 U.S. 267 (1806). 

WHEREFORE, Defendant/Petitioner, TARGET CORPRATION, respectfully requests 

this action, which is currently pending in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach 

County, Florida, be removed to this Honorable Court, that this Court assume full jurisdiction over 

the cause herein as provided by law, and that the Court grant further relief which is deemed just 

and appropriate.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 18th day of June, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing 

document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document 

is being served this day on all counsel of record or pro se parties identified on the attached 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.

DERREVERE STEVENS BLACK & COZAD

2005 Vista Parkway, Suite 210

West Palm Beach, Florida 33411

Telephone: (561) 684-3222

Facsimile: (561) 640-3050

Email: jdd@derreverelaw.com

eservice@derreverelaw.com

cprasad@derreverelaw.com

BY: ___s/Jon D. Derrevere_______

JON D. DERREVERE, ESQUIRE

Florida Bar No: 0330132

Case 9:20-cv-80960-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2020 Page 14 of 15
SERVICE LIST

WILLIAM DAMELIO versus Target Corporation and Roto-Rooter Services Company

United States District Court, Southern District of Florida

Jon D. Derrevere, Esquire

E-mail: jdd@derreverelaw.com 

Derrevere Stevens Black & Cozad

2005 Vista Parkway, Suite 210

West Palm Beach, FL 33411

Phone: (561) 684-3222

Facsimile: (561) 640-3050

Attorney for Defendant,

Target Corporation

Hubert McGinley, Esquire

E-mail: hmcginley@schwedlawfirm.com

Schwed, Adams & McGinley, P.A.

7111 Fairway Drive, Suite 105

Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418

Phone: (561) 694-6079

Facsimile: (561) 694-6089

Attorney for Plaintiff, 

Sara Avakian

Case 9:20-cv-80960-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2020 Page 15 of 15