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

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

CASE NO. 

LISA OLLIS,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP, 

Defendant.

_________________________________/

DEFENDANT WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP’ S NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Defendant, WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP (“Wal-Mart”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 

1332, 1441 and 1446(b)(1), and Rule 81 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby removes 

to this Court the action filed in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach

County, Florida, Case No. 50-2020-CA-006362-XXXX-MB, with full reservation of rights, 

exceptions and defenses, and in support thereof states:

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1. On or about June 12, 2020, Plaintiff Lisa Ollis (“Plaintiff”) commenced this 

action by filing a lawsuit against Wal-Mart in the Fifteen Judicial Circuit Court in and for Palm 

Beach County, Florida. See Pl.’s Compl. attached as Ex. “A.” 

2. Plaintiff served her Complaint on Wal-Mart’s registered agent on June 17, 2020. 

See CT Corporation Service of Process Transmittal Form attached as Ex. “B.”

3. The Complaint raises a negligence claim against Wal-Mart due to injuries 

Plaintiff allegedly sustained, on May 19, 2019, while at the Wal-Mart store located at 4375 

Belvedere Road, West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. See Ex. “A.” Specifically, 

Case 9:20-cv-81174-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 1 of 9
2

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

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

Plaintiff contends she “slipped and fell on [a] foreign substance on the floor of an aisle” and that 

she sustained injuries as a result. Id. ¶ 6. 

4. Plaintiff further asserts that Wal-Mart breached the duty of care owed to her by,

among other things, negligently maintaining the subject store and failing to adequately warn her

of the alleged condition on which she purportedly slipped. See id. at ¶ 8.

5. On or about May 13, 2020, prior to filing the instant lawsuit, Plaintiff submitted a 

pre-suit demand letter to Wal-Mart’s claims administrator, Claims Management, Inc., in which 

she demanded from Wal-Mart $225,000.00 as full and final settlement of this matter (“Demand 

Letter”). See Demand Letter1 attached as Ex. “C.” The Demand Letter also states she incurred

$118,772.94 in medical expenses due to the alleged incident. Id.” 

6. The Complaint alleges Plaintiff resides in Palm Beach County, Florida. Ex. A.,¶ 

2.

7. Given the foregoing, this matter is 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. 

8. Wal-Mart attaches hereto and makes a part of this Notice a copy of the process, 

pleadings, and other papers filed in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, 

Florida, together with a docket sheet from the Clerk of the Court. See attached as Composite Ex. 

“D.”

9. Wal-Mart reserves the right to raise all defenses and objections in this action after 

the action is removed to this Court.

 

1 Wal-Mart has not filed the medical records Plaintiff submitted with her Demand Letter in order to protect the 

Plaintiff’s personal information and pursuant to the Court’s administrative procedures. Should the Court wish to 

review these documents, Wal-Mart will provide same to the Court for an in camera inspection.

Case 9:20-cv-81174-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 2 of 9
3

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

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

REMOVAL IS TIMELY

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

thirty (30) days of its receipt of Plaintiff’s initial Complaint. Plaintiff’s Complaint is the initial 

pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which Plaintiff’s action is based. The thirty (30) 

day period commenced on June 17, 2020, when Plaintiff effectuated service of the Complaint on 

Wal-Mart. Prior to serving her Complaint, Plaintiff sent Wal-Mart the Demand Letter outlining 

Plaintiff’s claimed damages, inclusive of actual medical expenses, in connection with her May 

19, 2019 alleged incident. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Southern

District of Florida, West Palm Beach Division, because the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit where 

Plaintiff filed her state court action is located in Palm Beach County, Florida, which is located 

within the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, West Palm Beach

Division. 

THERE IS COMPLETE DIVERSITY WITHIN THE PARTIES

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 Lisa Ollis. 

“It 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). In the instant case, the Complaint alleges Plaintiff is a resident of Palm Beach

County, Florida. Ex. A, ¶2. Thus, Plaintiff’s residence in Palm Beach County, Florida is prima 

Case 9:20-cv-81174-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 3 of 9
4

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

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

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, LP.

Wal-Mart Stores East, LP is a foreign limited partnership, which is, at the time of the 

alleged incident, and on the date of the filing of the Complaint, a Delaware Limited Partnership 

with its principal place of business in Arkansas. 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, on the date of the filing of the 

Complaint, and currently are Delaware limited liability companies. The sole member of WSE 

Management, LLC and WSE Investment, LLC is, and on the date of the filing of the Complaint, 

Wal-Mart Stores East, LLC, an Arkansas Limited Liability Company. Wal-Mart Stores East, 

LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Walmart Inc. Walmart Inc. is, and on the date of the filing 

of the Complaint, a Delaware corporation. The sole member of Wal-Mart Stores East, LLC is 

and, on the date of the filing of the Complaint, Walmart Inc. Walmart Inc. is and, on the date of 

the filing of the Complaint, an incorporated entity under the laws of Delaware. The principal 

place of business for all of the above-mentioned entities is Bentonville, Arkansas and was so on 

the date of the filing of the Complaint.

AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY

The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. Although the Complaint does not 

specify an amount in controversy other than Florida’s circuit court jurisdictional minimum, it is 

clear from the Demand Letter that Plaintiff’s claimed damages exceed this Court’s jurisdictional 

minimum of $75,000.00. See Katz v. J.C. Penney Corp., Inc., 2009 WL 1532129, *5 (S.D. Fla. 

Case 9:20-cv-81174-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 4 of 9
5

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

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

June 1, 2009) (concluding the defendant met its jurisdictional burden of establishing the amount 

in controversy based on information received from the plaintiff in the pre-suit demand package); 

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 demand letters are competent evidence of the 

amount in controversy.). 

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). “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 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. 

The relevant portions of the Demand Letter, along with the medical records and medical 

bills provided to Wal-Mart with the Demand Letter, conclusively establish that the amount in 

controversy exceeds this Court’s $75,000.00 jurisdictional minimum. The medical bills provided 

with the Demand Letter and which Plaintiff claims she incurred due to the alleged incident total 

Case 9:20-cv-81174-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 5 of 9
6

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

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

$118,772.94. See Ex. C. Moreover, Plaintiff estimates the damages in the instant matter to be at 

least $225,000.00, based on the amount she demanded to settle this claim. See Ex. “C.” 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.

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 noted it 

was persuaded that the pre-suit demand package reflected an honest assessment of damages by 

plaintiff because, like the Demand Letter, it was based on medical records provided by the 

plaintiff. Id.

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. 

In Stramiello v. Petsmart, Inc., 2010 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 he 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. 

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 an 

additional $1 million dollars in future medical expenses as a result of her incident. Wilson v. 

Case 9:20-cv-81174-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 6 of 9
7

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

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

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 sought, but only plead that her damages were in 

excess of $15,000.00, this Court denied plaintiff’s motion to remand finding plaintiff’s pre-suit 

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

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

Here, Plaintiff’s pre-suit demand package, which estimate Plaintiff’s damages to be 

$225,000, is alleged to be Plaintiff’s honest assessment of her claimed damages since it is based 

on the medical records she previously provided to Wal-Mart. See Katz, 2009 WL 1532129 at *4. 

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. 

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 Notice of Removal, Wal-Mart will promptly give written notice to 

Plaintiff, through her attorneys of record, and the Clerk of the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth

Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida. 

WHEREFORE, Defendant WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP respectfully requests the 

Notice of Removal be accepted as good and sufficient as required by law, and that the aforesaid 

action, filed in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, Case 

No. 50-2020-CA-006362-XXXX-MB, be removed from that court to the United States District 

Court for the Southern District of Florida, West Palm Beach Division, and that this Court assume 

Case 9:20-cv-81174-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 7 of 9
8

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

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

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

equitable relief to which Wal-Mart is entitled. 

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Suzette L. Russomanno

Jerry D. Hamilton

Florida Bar No.: 970700

jhamilton@hamiltonmillerlaw.com

William H. Edwards

Florida Bar No. 43766

wedwards@hamiltonmillerlaw.com 

Suzette L. Russomanno

Florida Bar No. 751081

srussomanno@hamiltonmillerlaw.com

HAMILTON, MILLER & BIRTHISEL, LLP

150 Southeast Second Avenue, Suite 1200 

Miami, Florida 33131

Telephone: 305-379-3686

Attorneys for Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores East, LP

Case 9:20-cv-81174-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 8 of 9
9

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 July 17, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing with the 

Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system. I further certify that the foregoing document is being 

served this day on all counsel of record identified on the attached Service List. 

/s/ Suzette L. Russomanno

 Suzette L. Russomanno

SERVICE LIST

Jason D. Weisser, Esq.

Michael D. Dickenson, Esq. 

Schuler, Halvorson,Weisser, Zoeller & Overbeck, P.A.

1615 Forum Place, Suite 4-D

West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

jweisser@shw-law.com

mdickenson@shw-law.com

michele@shw-law.com 

rchew@shw-law.com

darriaga@shw-law.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 9:20-cv-81174-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 9 of 9