UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. 

MARIA L. SUAREZ, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., 

 Defendant. 

 / 

DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL

 Defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (“Home Depot” or “Defendant”), pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446, hereby removes this action from the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit 

Court in and for Palm Beach County, Florida. The removal is based on diversity of citizenship, and 

this Court therefore has original subject matter jurisdiction over the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1332(a). The specific grounds for removal are the following: 

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE 

Plaintiff Maria L. Suarez filed a Complaint against Home Depot in the Fifteenth Judicial 

Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, on or about May 29, 2020. The action is 

styled Maria L. Suarez v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., and is designated Case No. 

502020CA005813XXXXMB (hereafter referred to as the “State Action”). Copies of all process, 

pleadings, and orders served upon Defendant in the State Action are attached hereto as Exhibit 

A. 

Case 9:20-cv-80984-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2020 Page 1 of 10
 2

Defendant was first served with the Summons and Complaint on June 3, 2020. The 

Complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought, however, nor does it provide an 

estimate of same. See Exhibit A, Pl.’s Compl. 

II. GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL 

This removal is based on diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(b) and 

1446(b)(3), through application of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), the State Court Action can be properly removed to this 

Court if there is (a) complete diversity of citizenship between Plaintiff and Defendant; and, (b) 

the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs. 

 (a) There is Complete Diversity of Citizenship. 

As set forth below, Plaintiff and Defendant are citizens of different states. 

Plaintiff is a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida, and is a citizen of Florida for 

diversity purposes. See Exhibit A, Pl’s Compl. ¶ 5. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c), for the purposes of determining diversity of citizenship, 

a corporation is deemed to be a citizen of the State where it is incorporated and where it has its 

principal place of business. Defendant Home Depot is incorporated in the State of Delaware 

with its principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. See Exhibit B, Declaration of Penny 

Paladino ¶ 3. Thus, Home Depot is a citizen of Delaware and Georgia for purposes of 

determining diversity of citizenship. 

As set forth above, this suit is between citizens of different states as required by 28 

U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). 

Case 9:20-cv-80984-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2020 Page 2 of 10
 3

 (b) The Amount in Controversy Exceeds $75,000.00. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(A), this Notice of Removal asserts that the amount in 

controversy is greater than $75,000. 

Plaintiff’s Complaint demands an unspecified amount of damages under the Florida Civil 

Rights Act (FCRA), including back pay, front pay or reinstatement, compensatory damages, 

punitive damages, and attorney’s fees. See Exhibit A, Pl.’s Compl. ¶¶ 71 and 87 (in the “prayer 

for relief” clauses following each paragraph). 

Where, as in the instant case, a plaintiff has made an unspecified demand for damages in 

state court, the removing defendant must establish only by a preponderance of the evidence that 

the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount for diversity jurisdiction. Pretka v. 

Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744, 752 (11th Cir. 1996) (emphasis added); see also 28 

U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(B) (“removal of the action is proper on the basis of an amount in 

controversy asserted under subparagraph (A) if the district court finds by the preponderance of 

the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds the amount specified in section 1332(a).”). 

As such, the issue is whether – more likely than not – the amount in controversy exceeds 

$75,000. 

The Eleventh Circuit has held that this “lower burden of proof is warranted because there 

is simply no estimate of damages to which a court may defer.” Tapscott v. MS Dealer Service 

Corp., 77 F.3d 1353, 1357 (11th Cir. 1997). Importantly, “[t]he point is that a removing 

defendant is not required to prove the amount in controversy beyond all doubt or to banish all 

uncertainty about it.” Pretka, 608 F.3d at 754; see also South Florida Wellness, Inc. v. Allstate 

Ins. Co., 745 F.3d 1312, 1315 (11th Cir. 2014) (explaining that the key is not “how much the 

plaintiffs are ultimately likely to recover,” but “how much will be put at issue during the 

Case 9:20-cv-80984-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2020 Page 3 of 10
 4

litigation”). Here, all reasonable inferences demonstrate that the amount in controversy—more 

likely than not—exceeds $75,000. 

First, the amount of Plaintiff’s claimed back pay must be considered for the jurisdictional 

requirement. Plaintiff’s employment ended on or about November 22, 2017. See Exhibit B, 

Declaration of Penny Paladino, ¶ 5. At the time her employment ended Plaintiff worked an 

average of forty hours per week and was paid $19.49 per hour (amounting to $779.60 per week). 

See Exhibit B, ¶ 6. Plaintiff’s employment ended approximately 135 weeks ago. This means 

that her claimed back pay to date is approximately $105,246.00. This, by itself, exceeds the 

jurisdictional threshold. 

Plaintiff is also seeking front pay or reinstatement under the FCRA. Front pay is a form 

of equitable relief awarded to a FCRA plaintiff in lieu of, or until, reinstatement. Brown v. Am. 

Express Co., No. 09-CIV-61758, 2010 WL 527756, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 10, 2010). For amountin-controversy purposes, such equitable relief is calculated as “the monetary value of the object 

of the litigation that would flow to the plaintiff” if the requested relief is granted. Leonard v. 

Enterprise Rent a Car, 279 F.3d 967, 973 (11th Cir. 2002). 

In the event that the Plaintiff can show that reinstatement is not feasible and this Court 

considers the issue of front pay, an award of one or two years of front pay is not uncommon in 

employment discrimination cases. See Munoz v. Oceanside Resorts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1340, 1349 

(11th Cir. 2000) (affirming front pay award of one year in an employment discrimination case 

under ADEA and FCRA); Brown v. Cunningham Lindsey U.S., Inc., No. 305CV141J32HTS, 

2005 WL 1126670, at *5 (M.D. Fla. May 11, 2005) (assuming one year of front pay when 

determining amount in controversy in an employment discrimination/retaliation lawsuit under the 

FCRA); see also Whittlesey v. Union Carbide Corp., 742 F.2d 724 (2d Cir. 1984) (affirming 

Case 9:20-cv-80984-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2020 Page 4 of 10
 5

award of 4 years front pay in an ADEA case). In this case, if Plaintiff were to prevail at trial and 

the Court were to award her one year of front pay, she would recover an additional $40,539.20. 

In addition, Plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages. See 

Exhibit A, Pl.’s Compl. ¶¶ 71 and 87 (in the “prayer for relief” clauses following each 

paragraph). Although Defendant takes the position that Plaintiff will not be entitled to such 

damages, they are likewise available under the FCRA, and are uncapped and unlimited. See Fla. 

Stat. § 760.11(5). Accordingly, compensatory damages must be considered as well. 

Compensatory damages, by themselves, often exceed the jurisdictional threshold in 

employment discrimination cases. See Munoz, 223 F.3d at 1348 (affirming $150,000 

compensatory damages jury award in an employment discrimination FCRA case); Hill v. Xerox 

Corp., 998 F. Supp. 1378, 1384 (N.D. Fla. 1998) (upholding a jury award of $457,000 for 

emotional distress for violation of the FCRA). For her part, Plaintiff alleges that she suffered 

“mental pain, anguish, pain, and humiliation.” See Exhibit A, Pl.’s Compl. ¶ 71 (in the “prayer 

for relief” clause following the paragraph). 

Finally, Plaintiff has demanded attorney’s fees. See Exhibit A, Pl.’s Compl. ¶¶ 71 and 87 

(in the “prayer for relief” clauses following each paragraph). The amount in controversy also 

includes Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees when a statutory cause of action entitles a party to them. See

Field v. Nat’l Life Ins. Co., No. 8:00-CV-989-T-24TBM, 2001 WL 77101, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 

22, 2001). Attorney’s fees are authorized by the FCRA, and therefore must be included here. 

See Fla. Stat. § 760.11(5). 

Courts have found that reasonable hourly rates in Southern Florida for attorneys handling 

FCRA cases can range anywhere from $175 to $350 per hour. See Holland v. Gee, No. 8:08-

CV-2458-T-33AEP, 2012 WL 5845010, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 23, 2012) (awarding plaintiff $175 

Case 9:20-cv-80984-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2020 Page 5 of 10
 6

and $350 per hour for attorney fees depending on experience level of counsel). As such, attorney 

fees in employment cases often alone exceed the jurisdictional threshold of $75,000. See Mock 

v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., No. 6:04-CV-1415, 2010 WL 5066121 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 3, 2010) 

(awarding plaintiff $ 342,207.81 in attorney fees in age discrimination case); EEOC v. Enterprise 

Leasing Co., Inc., No. 8:00-CV-2012-T-24-EAD, 2003 WL 21659097, at * 8 (M.D. Fla. May 16, 

2003) (intervening attorney was awarded $ 77,165.00 for work performed in a non-complex case 

by lead counsel even after reducing lead counsel’s hourly rate, the number of hours billed, and 

adjusting the lodestar.). Although Defendant denies that Plaintiff will be able to recover such 

damages in this action, an amount of $75,000 would be a reasonable estimation for the purposes 

of calculating the amount in controversy. 

Whatever the individual amounts, it is clear that when all recoverable damages are 

included, it is well beyond the required more-likely-than-not standard that the value of the case 

exceeds $75,000.00. For these reasons, it is more likely than not that the amount-in-controversy 

threshold is satisfied.1

Because the value of Plaintiff’s claims more likely than not exceeds $75,000.00, 

exclusive of interest and costs, and the action is between citizens of different states, the district 

court has original jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). This action may 

therefore be removed by Defendant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 

 

1

 To be clear, Home Depot does not believe Plaintiff is entitled to these amounts, or anywhere 

near them, even should she prevail in this case, which Home Depot strenuously believes she 

should not. Rather, this is the proper measure of damages that Plaintiff has claimed and that her 

complaint has put at issue. See South Florida Wellness, 745 F.3d at 1315 (explaining that the 

key is not “how much the plaintiffs are ultimately likely to recover,” but “how much will be put 

at issue during the litigation”). 

Case 9:20-cv-80984-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2020 Page 6 of 10
 7

III.VENUE 

Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 

because the case is being removed from the Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County, Florida. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3). 

IV.CONSENT OF OTHER DEFENDANTS 

There are no other defendants who would need to join in or consent to this Notice of 

Removal. 

V. TIMELINESS OF REMOVAL 

The Defendant was first served with the summons and complaint on June 3, 2020. Thus, 

Defendant is filing this Notice of Removal within the 30-day time period required by 28 U.S.C. § 

1446(b). 

VI.ATTACHMENT OF STATE COURT PLEADINGS 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), a copy of all process, pleadings, and orders served upon 

the Defendant in the State Court Action is annexed hereto as Exhibit A. 

VII. NOTICE OF REMOVAL GIVEN TO STATE COURT 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), a copy of this Notice of Removal is being filed with the 

Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County, Florida. See Exhibit C. 

Case 9:20-cv-80984-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2020 Page 7 of 10
 8

Dated: June 23, 2020. 

 

Respectfully submitted, 

OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, 

SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 

9130 S. Dadeland Boulevard 

Suite 1625 

Miami, Florida 33156 

Telephone: 305.374.0506 

Facsimile: 305.374.0456 

Kelly M. Peña 

Christopher P. Hammon 

Florida Bar No. 176753 

chris.hammon@ogletreedeakins.com 

Kelly M. Peña 

Florida Bar No. 106575 

kelly.pena@ogletreedeakins.com 

Counsel for Defendant, 

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. 

Case 9:20-cv-80984-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2020 Page 8 of 10
 9

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June 23, 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. 

 Kelly M. Peña 

Kelly M. Peña 

Case 9:20-cv-80984-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2020 Page 9 of 10
 10

SERVICE LIST 

Maria L. Suarez v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. 

United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 

CASE NO. 

 Zandro E. Palma 

zep@thepalmalawgroup.com 

ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 

9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. 

Suite 1500 

Miami, FL 33156 

Telephone: 305.446.1500 

Facsimile: 305.446.1502 

Counsel for Plaintiff, 

Maria L. Suarez 

Method of Service: CM/ECF 

Christopher P. Hammon 

chris.hammon@ogletreedeakins.com 

Kelly M. Peña 

kelly.pena@ogletreedeakins.com 

OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, 

SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 

9130 S. Dadeland Boulevard 

Suite 1625 

Miami, FL 33156 

Telephone: 305.374.0506 

Facsimile: 305.374.0456 

Counsel for Defendant, 

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. 

 

43250863.1 

Case 9:20-cv-80984-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2020 Page 10 of 10