UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: __________________ CIV

STATE CASE NO.: CACE 20-012179 

FRANK DEMARZO,

Plaintiff,

v.

HEALTHCARE TRUST OF AMERICA, 

INC., a Foreign Profit Corporation, 

Defendant.

____________________________________/

DEFENDANT, HEALTHCARE TRUST OF AMERICA, INC.'S

NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Defendant, HEALTHCARE TRUST OF AMERICA, INC., by and through its undersigned 

counsel, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 and§ 1446, hereby gives notice of the removal to this 

Court of the case styled, Frank Demarzo v. Healthcare Trust of America, Inc, filed in the Circuit 

Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, Case No.: CACE 

20-012179. As grounds for this removal, the Defendant states the following:

1. HEALTHCARE TRUST OF AMERICA is a Defendant in a civil action brought against it 

in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, styled 

Frank Demarzo v. Healthcare Trust of America, Inc., Case No.: CACE 20-012179. See Pl.’s 

Compl. attached as Defendant’s Exhibit "A."

2. In the Complaint, the Plaintiff, FRANK DEMARZO alleges that on or about June 11, 2018,

he slipped and fell on the painted curb/sidewalk in front of the Defendant’s healthcare clinic 

located at 9800 West Commercial Boulevard in Sunrise, Florida. Id. Plaintiff has brought a cause 

of action for negligence against HEALTHCARE TRUST OF AMERICA for failing to reasonably 

Case 0:20-cv-61693-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2020 Page 1 of 9
maintain, inspect and/or remedy the subject curb/sidewalk and failing to adequately warn Plaintiff 

of same. Id.

3. The aforementioned action is one over which this Court has original jurisdiction under the 

provisions of 28 U.S.C. §1332 and is one which may be removed to this Court by the Defendant 

HEALTHCARE TRUST OF AMERICA herein, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446. See

Darden v. Ford Consumer Fin. Co., Inc., 200 F. 3d 753,755 (11th Cir. 2000) (Removal jurisdiction 

exists only where the district court would have had original jurisdiction over the action).

4. The Plaintiff’s claim could have been filed in federal court originally, in that (a) it is an 

action between citizens of different states; and (b) it is a civil action in which the amount in 

controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. See 28 U.S.C. § 

1332(a).

Complete Diversity Exists

5. Diversity exists between the parties as: 

a. The Plaintiff is not an Arizona citizen: The Plaintiff's Complaint is silent as to 

his State of citizenship and only indicates that he is a resident of Broward County, 

Florida. See Exhibit A. See Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F. 3d 1365,1367 (11th Cir. 1994) 

(Citizenship, not residence, is the key fact that must be alleged in the complaint to 

establish diversity for a natural person); see also 13B Wright, Miller & Cooper, 

Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction 2d § 3602 (1984 & Supp. 2008). 

Velazquez v. Advance Stores Co., Inc., No. 13-60740-CIV, 2013 WL 2005697, at 

*1 n.1 (S.D. Fla. May 15, 2013) (residency is not the equivalent of citizenship for 

diversity purposes).

Accordingly, Counsel for the Defendant did a background investigation on the 

Case 0:20-cv-61693-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2020 Page 2 of 9
Plaintiff to determine his citizenship. The results of this investigation, which were 

received on August 11, 2020 reflect the Plaintiff’s current address and all of his

prior addresses since 1993 and yielded no addresses within the State of Arizona. 

See Aff. of Thomas W. Paradise, Esquire attached as Defendant’s Exhibit “B.” 

b. Defendant HEALTHCARE TRUST OF AMERICA is a citizen of the State of 

Arizona: HEALTHCARE TRUST OF AMERICA is a foreign, for profit 

corporation registered in the State of Arizona with its principal place of business

located in Scottsdale, Arizona. As a result, HEALTHCARE TRUST OF

AMERICA is considered to be a citizen of the State of Arizona. The phrase 

“principal place of business” in 28 USC §1332(c)(1) refers to the place where the 

corporation’ s high-level officers direct, control and coordinate the corporation’ s 

activities. Courts have often metaphorically called that place the corporation’ s 

“nerve center.” The “nerve center” will typically be found at a corporation’ s 

headquarters. See, Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 599 US 77 (2010). As such, 

HEALTHCARE TRUST OF AMERICA is considered to be a citizen of Arizona.

See Exhibit “C” documentation from Sunbiz.org regarding HEALTHCARE 

TRUST OF AMERICA’s principal place of business.

The Amount in Controversy Exceeds $75,000.00

6. The matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest, 

costs and attorney's fees.

7. In his Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges damages in excess of $30,000.00, but with no dollar 

value affixed to any of the items of damages being claimed. See Exhibit "A."

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

Case 0:20-cv-61693-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2020 Page 3 of 9
met, the Court can consider “other papers” received by the defendant to determine if the case is 

removable. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1446(b); Bermudez v. Wal-mart Stores Texas, LLC. aka Walmart 

Supercenter #470, No. C–10–127, 2010 WL 2486868 at 3 (S.D.Tex. 2010); Foster v. The Home 

Depot Inc., No. Civ.A. 05-CV-1999, 2006 WL 470596 at 2 (E.D.Pa. 2006); Stramel v. GE Capital 

Small Bus. Fin. Corp., 955 F. Supp. 65, 68 (E.D.Tex. 1997). 

9. Courts have held that responses to requests for admissions, settlement offers, and other 

correspondence between parties can be ‘other paper’ under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). Wilson v. Target 

Corp., 2010 WL 3632794 (S.D.Fla. 2010), citing Lowery v. Ala. Power Co., 483 F. 3d 1184, 121 

n. 62 (11th Cir. 2007) (discussion of the judicial development of the term “other paper”); Addo v. 

Globe Life & Accident Ins. Co., 230F. 2d 779, 780 (11th Cir. 1989) (response to request for 

admissions). 

10. Medical bills also constitute “other papers.” See Bermudez, 2010 WL 2486868 at 3.

11. In this case, the Plaintiff is alleging that as a result of the subject incident he sustained 

injuries to his right ankle, which included: a right communicated fracture of the distal fibula and a 

fracture of the posterior malleolus of the tibia.

1

 

12. A review of Plaintiff’s medical records also show that he was immediately hospitalized 

following the subject slip and fall and subsequently underwent multiple surgical procedures in 

order to correct the ankle fractures he contends were sustained during the subject incident. See

Exhibit “B.” The surgical procedures include an open reduction and internal fixation of the

trimalleolar ankle fracture with the placement of hardware which occurred on June 14, 2018 and 

removal of the hardware with reinsertion/repositioning of posterior malleolar screw for fixation

1 Due to HIPAA considerations, the undersigned cannot produce a copy of the Plaintiff’s medical records or bills with 

its Notice of Removal. However, should the Court need to review the actual bills to determine whether diversity 

subject matter jurisdiction exists, then the undersigned will provide such documentation to the Court. 

Case 0:20-cv-61693-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2020 Page 4 of 9
which occurred on November 13, 2018. See Id.

13. Prior to the commencement of litigation Plaintiff’s Counsel provided the Defendant with 

Plaintiff’s past medical bills, which amount to approximately $414,790.98. See Exhibit “B”.

14. Additionally, Plaintiff’s past medical bills do not account for any monetary compensation 

related to probable pain and suffering in the past and future and future medical care that could 

potentially be awarded to the Plaintiff by a jury. The Plaintiff has also asserted a claim for loss of

wages in the past and future in his Complaint. See Exhibit “A.” In Plaintiff’s Counsel’s pre-suit 

correspondence, it was indicated that Plaintiff’s lost wage claim amounts to approximately 

$411,313,50. See Exhibit “D”.

15. The undersigned counsel for Defendant has had an opportunity to review the 

aforementioned medical bills and pre-suit correspondence from Plaintiff’s Counsel, and attests to 

the fact that if awarded, the value of the Plaintiff’s claimed injuries would exceed the jurisdictional 

requirements of this Court. See Exhibit "B;" see also Black v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. 

Co., No. 10–80996–CIV, 2010 WL 4340281 at *1 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 22,2010) citing Pretka v. Kolter 

City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F. 3d 744, 755 (11th Cir. 2010) (“A defendant may introduce its own 

affidavits, declarations, or other documentation to meet its burden” of establishing jurisdiction).

16. Moreover, prior to the filing of this lawsuit, HEALTHCARE TRUST OF AMERICA

received a demand letter from Plaintiff’s counsel dated May 26, 2020 setting forth a settlement 

demand well in excess of the $75,000.00 amount in controversy requirement. See Exhibit “B”/

17. In order to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional requirements 

of the Court, a defendant can also meet its "jurisdictional burden of establishing the amount in 

controversy based on information received from the Plaintiffs in the pre-suit demand package 

[that] ... reflects an honest assessment of damages by Plaintiffs because it is based on medical 

Case 0:20-cv-61693-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2020 Page 5 of 9
records provided by the Plaintiff." Katz v. J.C. Penney Corp., Inc., No. 09-CV-60067, 2009 WL 

1532129, *5 (S.D. Fla. June 1, 2009). In Katz, the defendant removed the case to Federal Court 

based on its "valuation of the jurisdictional amount through examining the medical records 

provided by the Plaintiff in her [pre-suit] demand package." Id. at *3.

18. "The Court gives preference to Plaintiff's own assessment of the value of her case." Black 

v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No.: 10-80996-CIV, 2010 WL 4340281, *2 (S.D. Fla. Oct 22, 

2010). Although pre-suit settlement offers standing alone may not be determinative of the amount 

in controversy in any given case, when it is not apparent from the face of the Complaint that the 

jurisdictional amount is met, the Court can consider "other papers" received by the defendant to 

determine if the case is removable. See Wilson v. Target Corporation, No. 10-80451-CIV, 2010 

WL 3632794 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 14, 2010); Jade East Towers Developers v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. 

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

19. Based on: the types of injuries suffered by the Plaintiff and the medical treatment

(including multiple related surgeries) rendered allegedly as a result of the subject incident as 

indicated in the medical records; Plaintiff’s past medical bills amounting to approximately

$414,790.98; and Plaintiff’s pre-suit demand which by far exceeds the $75,000.00 jurisdictional 

threshold of this Court, the Defendant has provided the necessary “other paper” which allows 

HEALTHCARE TRUST OF AMERICA and the Court to ascertain that the amount in controversy 

exceeds the $75,000 jurisdictional value.

Removal is Timely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)

20. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) states in pertinent part that: “if the case stated by the initial pleading 

is not removable, a notice of removal may be filed within thirty days after receipt by the defendant, 

Case 0:20-cv-61693-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2020 Page 6 of 9
through service or otherwise, of a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from 

which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable.”

21. Although a defendant may utilize information from a demand letter to support removal, it 

does not trigger the running of the thirty-day period under Section 1446(b). Jade E. Towers 

Developers v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 936 F. Supp. 890 (N.D.Fla. 1996). The thirty-day time 

period in which a defendant must remove a case starts to run from defendant’s receipt of initial 

pleading only when that pleading affirmatively reveals on its face that the plaintiff is seeking 

damages in excess of minimum jurisdictional amount of federal courts. Lambertson v. Go Fit, 

LLC, 918 F. Supp. 2d 1283 (S.D. Fla. 2013), citing Chapman v. Powermatic, Inc., 969 F. 2d 160 

(5th Cir. 1992). This rule promotes certainty and judicial efficiency by not requiring courts to 

inquire into what a particular defendant may or may not subjectively know. Chapman at 163. The 

policies regarding removal counsel against adopting a rule that would impute knowledge of presuit documents to defendants; congress has made clear its intent that defendants must be 

circumspect in deciding whether to remove a case. Lambertson at 1286, citing Village Square 

Condo. of Orlando, Inc. v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2009 WL 4855700 (M.D. Fla. 2009) 

(citing 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (c)). “As other courts have recognized, if pre-suit documents were allowed 

to trigger the thirty-day limitation in 28 U.S.C. 1446(b), defendants would be forced to guess as to 

an action’s removability, thus encouraging premature, and often unwarranted, removal requests.” 

Lambertson at 1286, citing Village Square Condo. of Orlando, Inc., 2009 WL 4855700 at *4.

22. The Plaintiff’s Complaint was served upon the Defendant HEALTHCARE TRUST OF 

AMERICA on July 29, 2020. The Complaint is silent as to the Plaintiff’s citizenship. See Exhibit 

“A”. Defendant thereafter attempted to investigate Plaintiff’s citizenship independently by means 

of a background investigation. On August 11, 2020, Defendant received the results of this 

Case 0:20-cv-61693-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2020 Page 7 of 9
background investigation, which showed that none of Plaintiff’s addresses over the last twentyseven (27) years have been within the state of Arizona. See Exhibit “B”. As such, August 11, 2020

is when Defendant was put on notice that diversity jurisdiction exists in this matter.

23. Therefore, this Notice of Removal is timely filed and without waiver by Defendant, 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).

Procedural Matters

24. Venue in this Court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (a) and Local Rule 3.1 because 

this action is being removed from state court in which it was originally filed, the Circuit Court of

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida.

25. Defendant will give written notice of the filing of this notice as required by 28 U.S.C. § 

1446(d). A copy of this notice will be filed with the Clerk of the Court for the Seventeenth Judicial 

Circuit, in and for Broward County, Florida, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d).

26. Copies of pleadings and filings made in the Circuit Court Case No.: 19-021376 (05) are 

attached hereto and made a part hereof as Composite Exhibit "E."

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was electronically 

filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF on August 21, 2020 to: Marc Lyons, Esquire 

[marc@lyonssnyder.com; pi_filings@lyonssnyder.com; natalia@lyonssnyder.com; 

vanessa@lyonssnyder.com] .

VERNIS & BOWLING OF BROWARD, P.A.

5821 Hollywood Blvd.

Hollywood, FL 33021

Ph: (954) 927-5330

Fax: (954) 927-5320

Attorneys for Defendant, Target Corporation

By: /s/ Megan Pariti 

Megan Pariti, Esquire

Florida Bar No.: 1002533

MPariti@Florida-Law.com

Thomas. W. Paradise, Esquire

Case 0:20-cv-61693-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2020 Page 8 of 9
Florida Bar No.: 907235

TParadise@Florida-Law.com

Case 0:20-cv-61693-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2020 Page 9 of 9