IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PANAMA CITY DIVISION 

MONTY KOWITZ, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 5:20-cv-00070 

 

v. 

ENVIVA MANAGEMENT 

COMPANY, LLC, 

 Defendant, 

 / 

DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL 

Defendant ENVIVA MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, (“Defendant”) 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1443, 1446, and Rule 7.2, N.D. 

Fla. Loc. R., hereby files this Notice of Removal of an action pending in the Circuit 

Court of the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Jackson County, Florida, to the 

United States District Court, Northern District of Florida, Panama City Division, and 

provides the following statement as grounds for removal: 

1. Enviva Management Company, LLC, is a defendant in a civil action 

brought against it in the Circuit Court of the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for 

Jackson County, Florida, styled Monty Kowitz v. Enviva Management Company, 

LLC, Case No. CA 2019-CA-000606 (Circuit Civil 3-D). [Doc. 1-1 at pgs. 3-9] 

(Complaint). 

Case 5:20-cv-00070-MW-MJF Document 1 Filed 02/27/20 Page 1 of 8
Page 2 of 8

2. Pursuant to Rule 7.2(A), N.D. Fla. Loc. R., and 28 U.S.C. §1446(a), a 

copy of all process, pleadings, orders and other papers or exhibits of every kind then 

on file in state court is made a part hereof as [Doc. 1-1]. 

3. To the undersigned’s knowledge, no other papers or pleadings have 

been filed in the Circuit Court other than those included in [Doc. 1-1]. 

4. In accordance with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(B), this 

Notice of Removal is filed within 30 days of Defendant’s receipt of the initial 

pleading through service of the Summons and Complaint. [Doc. 1-2]. 

5. Venue in this District and Division is proper for purposes of removal 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), because this District and Division embrace the place in 

which the removed action was filed and is pending – Jackson County, Florida. 

6. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), written and electronic notice of filing 

this Notice of Removal will be served upon Plaintiff’s counsel, Marie A. Mattox. A 

true copy of this Notice of Removal will also be filed with the Clerk of the Circuit 

Court of the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Jackson County, Florida, as 

required by law. 

Procedural History 

7. On or about November 8, 2019, Plaintiff filed a one-count Complaint 

in the Circuit Court alleging disability discrimination under the Florida Civil Rights 

Act, Chapter 760, Florida Statutes (“FCRA”). [Doc. 1-1 at pgs. 3-9]. 

Case 5:20-cv-00070-MW-MJF Document 1 Filed 02/27/20 Page 2 of 8
Page 3 of 8

8. The Complaint was served upon Defendant on or about February 7,

2020, and the time for answering or otherwise responding to the Complaint has not 

yet expired. [Doc. 1-2]. 

Diversity Jurisdiction 

9. Plaintiff’s claim is removable upon the ground of diversity jurisdiction. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), this Court may exercise diversity jurisdiction 

when the matter is between citizens of different states and the amount in controversy 

exceeds $75,000. 

10. When considering diversity jurisdiction, the Court may consider the 

entire record before it. Dynasty Mgmt., LLC v. UMG Recordings, Inc., 759 Fed. 

Appx. 784, 791 (11th Cir. 2018) (“[The district court] has wide-ranging authority to 

examine the entire record in search of evidence supporting diversity jurisdiction.”). 

Plaintiff and Defendant 

are Citizens of Different States 

11. Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Florida. See [Doc. 1-1 at pg. 3] 

(“Plaintiff, MONTY KOWITZ, has been a resident of the State of Florida”) and 

[Doc. 1-3 at ¶¶ 5-7] (Affidavit of LeAnn Hamm). 

12. Defendant is a limited liability company organized under the laws of 

the State of Delaware. [Doc.1-4] (Affidavit of Jason Paral). 

Case 5:20-cv-00070-MW-MJF Document 1 Filed 02/27/20 Page 3 of 8
Page 4 of 8

13. For purposes of diversity citizenship, Defendant is a citizen of any state 

where its members are citizens. See Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH 

Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1022 (11th Cir. 2004). 

14. Defendant is not a citizen of Florida. Rather, Defendant is a citizen of 

the State of Delaware by virtue of its two members being citizens of Delaware. Its 

two members are Enviva Management Holdings, LLC, and Enviva Holdings, LP, 

both of which are organized under the laws of the State of Delaware. [Doc. 1-4]. 

Amount in Controversy Exceeds $75,000 

15. In his Complaint, Plaintiff generally alleges this action exceeds 

$15,000, exclusive of costs and fees. [Doc. 1-1 at pg. 3]. 

16. Without pleading any specific amounts, Plaintiff also generally claims 

as damages “emotional distress, mental pain and suffering, past and future pecuniary 

losses, inconvenience, bodily injury, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment for life and 

other non-pecuniary losses, along with back and front pay, interest on pay, bonuses 

and other benefits.” [Id. at pg. 7]. Plaintiff also claims punitive damages and 

attorneys’ fees and costs. [Id. at pgs. 7-8]. 

17. Plaintiff’s allegations, when read in conjunction with the demands for 

relief set forth in the Complaint, clearly establish the amount in controversy in this 

matter well exceeds $75,000, which Defendant can prove by a preponderance of the 

evidence. Rohee v. Garrison Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 14-CV-81037, 2014 WL 

Case 5:20-cv-00070-MW-MJF Document 1 Filed 02/27/20 Page 4 of 8
Page 5 of 8

12479276, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 2, 2014) (“When a plaintiff fails to plead a specific 

amount of damages, the removing defendant has the burden of proving by a 

preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the 

jurisdictional requirement.”) (citing Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 

744, 752 (11th Cir. 2010). 

18. Whether the amount in controversy in this case exceeds $75,000 can be 

demonstrated by presenting additional evidence or it may be “facially apparent” in 

the pleading. Avalos v. SDI of Gulf Breeze, Florida P'ship, 3:10CV453/MCR/EMT, 

2010 WL 11565761, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 15, 2010) (quoting Roe v. Michelin N. 

Am., Inc., 613 F.3d 1058, 1061 (11th Cir. 2010)). 

19. Plaintiff brought this lawsuit under the FCRA, which provides for 

economic damages including back pay. Section 760.11(5), Florida Statutes. Plaintiff 

worked as a full-time non-exempt (eligible for overtime) employee. At the time of 

his dismissal, he earned $20.56/hour. [Doc. 1-3 at ¶ 8]. Based on W-2’s issued to 

Plaintiff, he earned the following amounts in the last two and half years (30 months) 

of his employment: 

January to December 2016 (12 months) $56,757.77 

January to December 2017 (12 months) $52,659.77 

January to June 2018 (6 months) $24,331.46 

TOTAL (30 months) $133,749.00 

 

 

Case 5:20-cv-00070-MW-MJF Document 1 Filed 02/27/20 Page 5 of 8
Page 6 of 8

[Id. at ¶ 9].

20. Based on the foregoing amounts, Plaintiff earned $133,749.00 in the 

last 30 months of his employment. Accordingly, his average monthly income 

amounts to: $133,749.00 / 30 months = $4,458.30 

21. In calculating economic damages, “back pay, computed up to an 

anticipated trial date, is an appropriate measure of the amount in controversy for 

purposes of determining whether subject matter jurisdiction exists.” Cordell v. W.W. 

Williams Co., 16 F. Supp. 3d 1351, 1358 (N.D. Ala. 2014) (relying on Kok v. Kadant 

Black Clawson, Inc., 274 Fed.Appx. 856 (11th Cir.2008). 

22. Conservatively, trial in this matter would take place no sooner than 

October 2020 (eight months from the filing of this Notice). To the extent Plaintiff 

prevails at trial, he would be entitled to back from when he was terminated in June 

20, 2018, until the trial in this matter in October 20, 2020, which amounts to 2 years 

and four months (total of 28 months) of back pay, which amounts to $124,832.40

which is well over the $75,000 jurisdictional requirement. 

June 21, 2018 – June 20, 2019 (12 months) $53,499.60 

June 21, 2019 – June 20, 2020 (12 months) $53,499.60 

June 21, 2020 – October 20, 2020 (4 months) $17,833.20 

TOTAL BACK PAY (28 months) $124,832.40 

23. The amount in controversy in this case further exceeds the $75,000 

jurisdictional requirement based on Plaintiff also seeking to recover both 

compensatory damages and punitive damages. [Doc. 1-1 at pgs. 7-8]. Under the 

Case 5:20-cv-00070-MW-MJF Document 1 Filed 02/27/20 Page 6 of 8
Page 7 of 8

FCRA, available remedies for a disability discrimination claim include 

compensatory damages including, but not limited to, mental anguish, loss of dignity, 

and any other intangible injuries. Section 760.11(5), Florida Statutes. The FCRA 

also allows the award of punitive damages up to $100,000. Id.

24. To the extent Plaintiff prevails in this lawsuit and a jury awards 

compensatory and punitive damages sought by Plaintiff, the amount of such an 

award could either be over $75,000 alone or could bring the amount in controversy 

in this case well over the $75,000 jurisdictional requirement for diversity. See Avalos 

v. SDI of Gulf Breeze, Florida P'ship, 3:10CV453/MCR/EMT, 2010 WL 11565761, 

at *2 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 15, 2010) (Court considered compensatory damages and 

punitive damages in an FCRA discrimination and retaliation lawsuit in holding the 

award of such damages alone “could exceed” jurisdictional requirement for 

diversity). See also id. at fn. 11 (citing Holley Equip. Co. v. Credit Alliance Corp.,

821 F.2d 1531, 1535 (11th Cir.1987) (“When determining the jurisdictional amount 

in controversy in diversity cases, punitive damages must be considered.”). 

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that the referenced action 

now pending against it in the Circuit Court be removed therefrom to this Court. 

 

Case 5:20-cv-00070-MW-MJF Document 1 Filed 02/27/20 Page 7 of 8
Page 8 of 8

Respectfully submitted, this 27th day of February 2020. 

/s/ Elmer C. Ignacio 

ELMER C. IGNACIO 

Florida Bar Number: 537683 

eignacio@sniffenlaw.com 

MICHAEL P. SPELLMAN 

Florida Bar No. 0937975 

mspellman@sniffenlaw.com 

SNIFFEN & SPELLMAN, P.A. 

123 North Monroe Street 

Tallahassee, Florida 32301 

Telephone: (850) 205-1996 

Facsimile: (850) 205-3004 

Attorneys for Defendant 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that on this 27th day of February 2020, a true and 

correct copy of the foregoing was electronically filed in the U.S. District Court, 

Northern District of Florida, using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of 

electronic filing to all counsel of record. 

/s/ Elmer C. Ignacio 

ATTORNEY 

Case 5:20-cv-00070-MW-MJF Document 1 Filed 02/27/20 Page 8 of 8