1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PENSACOLA DIVISION 

JAVANI, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability 

Company, and J.R. Elias, individually, and 

Plaintiff 3, a minor child by and through 

J.R. Elias as next friend, 

Plaintiff(s), 

v. Civil Action No.:_________ 

 

SHIVANI MITU BHATIA, 

Defendant. 

_______________________________/ 

NOTICE OF REMOVAL 

 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441 and 1446, Defendant, SHIVANI MITU 

BHATIA (“Bhatia”) files this Notice of Removal and effectively removes the 

action entitled " JAVANI, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, and J.R. 

Elias, individually, and Plaintiff 3, a minor child by and through J.R. Elias as next 

friend v. SHIVANI MITU BHATIA," in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial 

Circuit in and for Walton County, Florida, Civil Action No. 20CA359 (the "State 

Court Action") to the United States District Court for the Northern District of 

Florida, Pensacola Division. As grounds for removal, Bhatia states the following: 

Case 3:20-cv-05911-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/28/20 Page 1 of 27
2

I. Commencement of Case and Timeliness of Removal 

 1. Plaintiffs, JAVANI, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, and 

J.R. Elias, individually, and Plaintiff 3, a minor child by and through J.R. Elias as 

next friend (collectively, "Plaintiffs”), commenced the State Court Action by filing 

a Complaint on September 30, 2020. See Exh. A, State Court Action Documents, 

Civil Action No. 20CA359. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446, Bhatia is timely filing 

this Notice of Removal, as this Notice is filed within 30 days of the service of the 

Complaint and Summons. 

 2. As noted above, the State Court Action is pending in the Circuit Court 

of the First Judicial Circuit in and for Walton County, Florida. The Pensacola 

Division of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida 

encompasses Walton County, Florida. 

II. Statement of Federal Diversity Jurisdiction 

 3. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims under the provisions 

of 28 U.S.C. § 1332, in that it is a civil action wherein the amount in controversy 

exceeds the sum of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), exclusive of 

interest and costs, and is between citizens of different states. 

Case 3:20-cv-05911-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/28/20 Page 2 of 27
3

 4. For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, the Court may consider the 

entire record presented to it for removal, and not merely the Complaint. For 

example, in Wright v. Continental Cas. Co., 456 F. Supp. 1075, 1077 (M.D. Fla. 

1978), the court held that, although removability is generally determined by the 

allegations in the Complaint, if the Complaint does not adequately assert the basis 

for removal jurisdiction, the Court may look to the petition for removal to 

determine removability. Thus, if the jurisdictional amount is not facially apparent 

from the Complaint, the Court should look to the notice of removal and may 

examine evidence relevant to the amount in controversy at the time the case was 

removed. See Williams v. Best Buy Co., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001); Lee 

v. Altamil Corp., 457 F. Supp. 979, 981 (M.D. Fla. 1978) (court may examine 

record as a whole in determining propriety of removal); Woolard v. Heyer-Schulte,

791 F. Supp. 294, 295 (S.D. Fla. 1992) (defendant seeking removal based on 

diversity can supply elements required to establish federal diversity jurisdiction in 

its removal papers). 

 A. Diversity of Citizenship 

 5. Bhatia is a resident of and is domiciled in the State of Georgia. See

Exh. B, Declaration of Shivani Bhatia, at ¶ 2. 

 6. As set forth in the Complaint, Plaintiffs, J.R. Elias and Plaintiff 3, are 

residents of and domiciled in the State of Florida. See Complaint, at ¶ 2-3. 

Case 3:20-cv-05911-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/28/20 Page 3 of 27
4

 7. Plaintiffs allege that Javani, LLC is a Florida limited liability 

company. A review of public records reveals, however, that there is no Florida 

limited liability company registered in the State of Florida maintaining the name 

“Javani, LLC[.]”1

 As set forth by other courts in the Eleventh Circuit, “the naming 

of a nonexistent entity cannot destroy diversity.” Taylor v. Piggly Wiggly of Bay 

Minette, Ala., 2012 WL 3555576, *3 (S.D. Ala. 2012). 

8. Similarly, while Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges that Bhatia is a 

“founding Member of Javani LLC, a Florida LLC domiciled in Walton County, 

Florida[,]” Bhatia specifically refutes membership in any such limited liability 

company. Specifically, Bhatia never agreed to form such limited liability 

company, never approved or executed any operating agreement or other 

organizational documents for such limited liability company, and never authorized 

Mr. Elias (or any other person) to create such limited liability company with her as 

a member. See Affidavit of Dr. Shivani M. Bhatia at ¶¶ 3-4. 

 9. Considering the known domiciles of Bhatia, Elias and Plaintiff 3, 

coupled with the fact that Javani, LLC is not actually a limited liability company 

registered in the State of Florida, there is complete diversity of citizenship. 

 

1 See, 

http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResults/EntityName/ 

Javani%2c%20LC/Page1?searchNameOrder=JAVANI 

Case 3:20-cv-05911-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/28/20 Page 4 of 27
5

B. Amount in Controversy 

 10. Eleventh Circuit law is clear that a defendant's right to remove is 

determined by examining the allegations in the Complaint at the time the defendant 

files the notice of removal. See, e.g. Pease v. Medtronic, Inc., 6 F. Supp. 2d 1354, 

(S.D. Fla. 1998). Here, Plaintiffs’ Complaint states twelve different causes of 

action against Bhatia alleging various theories. For each of these twelve causes of 

action, Plaintiffs alleges that they, or one of them, suffered actual damages “in 

excess of the jurisdictional requirements of this court.” See Complaint, at ¶¶ 21, 

28, 34, 39, 44, 55, 66, 73, 79, 90, 95 and 99. Currently, the jurisdictional minimum 

to maintain an action in circuit court in Florida is $30,000.00. See Fla. Stat. § 

26.012 (recognizing that “Circuit courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction . 

. . in all actions at law not cognizable by the county courts”) and Fla. Stat. § 34.01 

(recognizing that the maximum amount in controversy for jurisdiction in Florida 

county court is presently $30,000.00). Accordingly, on the face of the Complaint, 

Plaintiffs have alleged actual damages of at least $360,000.00 (twelve counts 

seeking a jurisdictional minimum of $30,000); see Hunters Run Prop. Owners 

Ass'n, Inc. v. Centerline Real Estate, LLC, No. 18-80407-CIV, 2018 WL 6727315, 

at *6 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 22, 2018) (“To satisfy the jurisdictional amount-incontroversy requirement, a party may aggregate all of its claims against a single 

Case 3:20-cv-05911-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/28/20 Page 5 of 27
6

defendant.”) (citing Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs, Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 585 

(2005)). 

 11. Moreover, even if this Court determined that it will not aggregate the 

separate claims of multiple plaintiffs against one defendant, there are five counts 

brought on behalf of Plaintiffs Javani, LLC and Plaintiff Elias collectively, three 

separate counts brought on behalf of Plaintiff Elias alone, three separate counts 

brought on behalf of Plaintiff Elias and Plaintiff 3 collectively, and one count 

brought on behalf of Plaintiffs Javani, LLC, Plaintiff Elias and Plaintiff 3 

collectively. Designating these counts among the groups pled, the amount-incontroversy still exceeds $75,000 based on the allegations that each count has 

resulted in damages in excess of $30,000. Furthermore, the Complaint does not 

appear to merely set forth one right of recovery based on multiple theories or 

liability, but instead states multiple rights of recovery supported by multiple 

theories of liability. See Exum v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 821 F.Supp.2d 

1285, 1294 (M.D. Ala. 2011) (“While the Court may not aggregate the claims of 

multiple plaintiffs, it may aggregate a single plaintiff's claims resting on various 

theories of liability.”); see also Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 

U.S. 546, 585 (2005) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (“This Court has long held that, in 

determining whether the amount-in-controversy requirement has been satisfied, a 

single plaintiff may aggregate two or more claims against a single defendant, even 

Case 3:20-cv-05911-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/28/20 Page 6 of 27
7

if the claims are unrelated. See, e.g., Edwards v. Bates County, 163 U.S. 269, 273, 

16 S.Ct. 967, 41 L.Ed. 155 (1896).”). 

 C. Conclusion on Diversity Jurisdiction 

 12. Considering the foregoing, this case is properly removable under 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1441 (a) and (b). 

III. Service and Filing of Notice of Removal 

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

being contemporaneously served on Plaintiff and promptly filed with the Clerk of 

the Circuit Court of Walton County, Florida. 

 14. No admission of fact, law, or liability is intended by this Notice of 

Removal, and all defenses, motions and pleadings are expressly reserved. 

 WHEREFORE, Bhatia is entitled to have the State Court Action removed 

from the Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit in and for Walton County, 

Florida, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, 

Pensacola Division, which district and division embraces the place where the State 

Court Action is proceeding. 

 

Case 3:20-cv-05911-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/28/20 Page 7 of 27
8

Respectfully submitted this 28th day of October, 2020. 

 /s/ Daniel E. Harrell 

 DANIEL E. HARRELL 

 Florida Bar Number: 105222 

 dharrell@clarkpartington.com 

 CLARK PARTINGTON

 P.O. Box 13010 

 Pensacola, FL 32591-3010 

 Phone: (850) 434-9200 

 Fax: (850) 432-7340 

 Attorney for Defendant 

Shivani Mitu Bhatia 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been filed 

with the Clerk of the Court via CM/ECF System and furnished electronically and 

via U.S. Mail, first class, to the following on this 28th day of October, 2020.

 

J.R. Elias 

PO Box 4761 

Santa Rosa Beach, FL 32549 

jelias@30Amediation.com 

Plaintiff, pro se 

 /s/ Daniel E. Harrell 

 DANIEL E. HARRELL 

Case 3:20-cv-05911-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/28/20 Page 8 of 27
EXHBIT A 

Case 3:20-cv-05911-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/28/20 Page 9 of 27
Case 3:20-cv-05911-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/28/20 Page 10 of 27
Case 3:20-cv-05911-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/28/20 Page 11 of 27
Case 3:20-cv-05911-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/28/20 Page 12 of 27
Case 3:20-cv-05911-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/28/20 Page 13 of 27
Case 3:20-cv-05911-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/28/20 Page 14 of 27
Case 3:20-cv-05911-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/28/20 Page 15 of 27
Case 3:20-cv-05911-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/28/20 Page 16 of 27
Case 3:20-cv-05911-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/28/20 Page 17 of 27
Case 3:20-cv-05911-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/28/20 Page 18 of 27
Case 3:20-cv-05911-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/28/20 Page 19 of 27
Case 3:20-cv-05911-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/28/20 Page 20 of 27
Case 3:20-cv-05911-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/28/20 Page 21 of 27
Case 3:20-cv-05911-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/28/20 Page 22 of 27
Case 3:20-cv-05911-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/28/20 Page 23 of 27
Case 3:20-cv-05911-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/28/20 Page 24 of 27
EXHBIT B 

Case 3:20-cv-05911-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/28/20 Page 25 of 27
Case 3:20-cv-05911-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/28/20 Page 26 of 27
Case 3:20-cv-05911-RV-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/28/20 Page 27 of 27