UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

JUDITH A. REIDERMAN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO.: 

vs.

TA OPERATING LLC, d/b/a 

TravelCenters of America, a Foreign 

Limited Liability Company,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

DEFENDANT TA OPERATING LLC’S

NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441 and 1446, Defendant TA Operating 

LLC (“TA”), gives notice that this case is hereby removed from the Circuit Court 

for the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Jackson County, Florida, Case No. 

32-2020-CA000379-CAAXMX, to the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Florida, Panama City Division. In support of its Notice of 

Removal, TA states:

I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL FACTS

1. Plaintiff Judith A. Reiderman (“Plaintiff”) originally commenced this 

civil action by filing her Complaint in the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit Court in and 

for Jackson County, Florida, on November 24, 2020, against TA.

Case 5:20-cv-00335-TKW-MJF Document 1 Filed 12/21/20 Page 1 of 9
Page 2 of 9

2. Plaintiff served TA via its registered agent on November 30, 2020. 

Accordingly, this Notice of Removal is filed timely “within 30 days after the 

receipt by the Defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial 

pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is 

based. . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1).

3. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446 and Local Rule 7.2(A), attached hereto 

as Exhibit A are true and legible copies of “all process, pleadings, orders, and 

other papers or exhibits of every kind, including depositions” on file in the state 

court.

4. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). An 

action removed from state court to federal court must be removed to the district 

court “embracing the place where such action is pending.” See Hollis v. Fla. State 

Univ., 259 F.3d 1295, 1296 (11th Cir. 2001); 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (a defendant 

removing from state court “shall file in the district court of the United States for 

the district and division within such action is pending a notice of removal. . .”). 

This state court action is pending in the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit in and for 

Jackson County, Florida. The United States District Court for the Northern District 

of Florida, Panama City Division, encompasses Jackson County.

5. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), written notice of this removal will be 

filed with the Clerk of the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Jackson

Case 5:20-cv-00335-TKW-MJF Document 1 Filed 12/21/20 Page 2 of 9
Page 3 of 9

County, Florida, and TA will promptly serve Plaintiff with a copy of the Notice of 

Removal. See Exhibit B.

6. By filing this Notice, TA does not waive its right to assert any defense 

or affirmative matter, including, without limitation, the defenses listed in Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) and any other procedural or substantive defenses 

available to it under state or federal law.

7. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1332(a) because this is a civil action between citizens of different states in which 

the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000.00, exclusive of costs and 

interest.

II. REMOVAL IS PROPER IN THIS CASE

A. Complete Diversity of the Parties Exists

8. In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that at all times material hereto, she 

was a resident of Gilchrist County, Florida. Accordingly, Plaintiff is a citizen of 

Florida. (See Compl. ¶ 3).

9. Plaintiff does not specifically allege TA’s citizenship, but alleges and 

acknowledges that it is a foreign limited liability company with its principal place 

of business in Ohio. (See Compl. ¶ 4).

10. At all relevant times, TA Operating LLC has been, and continues to 

be, a limited liability company formed under the laws of the state of Delaware, 

Case 5:20-cv-00335-TKW-MJF Document 1 Filed 12/21/20 Page 3 of 9
Page 4 of 9

with its principal place of business in Ohio. “[A] limited liability company is a 

citizen of any state of which a member of the company is a citizen.” Rolling 

Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1022 (11th 

Cir. 2004). The sole member of TA Operating LLC is TravelCenters of America 

Inc., a Maryland corporation with its principal place of business also in Ohio. 

“[C]orporations are citizens in the states of their incorporation and their principal 

place of business.” Id. at 1021 n.1, citing 28 U.S.C. §1332(c)(1). Accordingly, 

TravelCenters of America Inc. is a citizen of the state of Maryland and Ohio, as is 

TA Operating LLC. 

11. Because Plaintiff is a citizen of Florida, and TA is not, complete 

diversity exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See also 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2).

B. Amount in Controversy Exceeds $75,000.00

12. The amount in controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 is also 

satisfied. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), in a case where federal jurisdiction is based 

upon diversity of citizenship, the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000.00, 

exclusive of costs and interests. Only a plausible allegation that the amount in 

controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold is required in a notice removal. 

Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547, 551, 554 

(2014) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a)).

Case 5:20-cv-00335-TKW-MJF Document 1 Filed 12/21/20 Page 4 of 9
Page 5 of 9

13. Plaintiff is bringing a claim for personal injuries. While the Complaint 

simply asserts that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold 

of the state circuit court ($30,000.00) (see Compl. ¶ 1), the amount in controversy 

clearly exceeds $75,000.00, notwithstanding the fact that TA denies any liability 

for Plaintiff’s damages.

14. “Removal from state court is proper if it is facially apparent from the 

complaint that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional requirement.” 

Williams v. Best Buy Co., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001). “Sometimes the 

amount in controversy is facially apparent from [sic] complaint even when it does 

not claim a specific amount of damages.” Clark v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 

5:15cv276-MW/GRJ, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165440, at *5 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 10, 

2015), citing Roe v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 613 F.3d 1058, 1061–62 (11th Cir. 

2010). The Court may use its judicial experience and common sense and may also 

“make reasonable deductions, reasonable inferences, or other reasonable 

extrapolations from the pleadings to determine whether it is facially apparent that 

the case is removable.” McAdams v. Plant Performance Servs., Ltd. Liab. Co., No. 

5:11-cv-247-RS-CJK, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90940, at *1–2 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 16, 

2011), citing Roe, 613 F.3d at 1061–62 (11th Cir. 2010). Furthermore, a district 

court “need not ‘suspend reality or shelve common sense’ in determining the 

amount in controversy.” Gardner v. Mgmt. & Training Corp., No. 4:14cv284-

Case 5:20-cv-00335-TKW-MJF Document 1 Filed 12/21/20 Page 5 of 9
Page 6 of 9

RH/CAS, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92956, at *5 (N.D. Fla. July 3, 2014) (quoting 

Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744, 770 (11th Cir. 2010)).

15. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges she tripped and fell while on TA’s 

premises (Compl. ¶¶ 12-14). The Complaint fails to specify the damages suffered, 

but Plaintiff asserts she suffered “bodily injury and resulting pain and suffering, 

disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, loss of capacity for enjoyment of life, 

expense and hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, loss of 

earnings, loss of ability to earn money, and aggravation of a previously existing 

condition.” (Compl. ¶ 16). Plaintiff further alleges “[t]hese losses are either 

permanent or continuing and Plaintiff will suffer the loss in the future.” Id.

16. Although TA denies any liability for Plaintiff’s alleged damages, the 

amount in controversy is clearly in excess of $75,000.00. The Court is permitted to 

consider evidence of amount in controversy where a complaint does not contain a 

specific amount of claimed damages. Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza, II, Inc., 608 F.3d 

744, 751 (11th Cir 2010). One of the permissible forms of evidence is an affidavit, 

which is not limited in scope by the substantive jurisdictional requirements of 

removal. Id. at 755.

17. The affidavit of defense counsel, Courtney M. King, attached hereto 

as Exhibit C, further discusses Plaintiff’s claimed damages, including the fact that 

prior to the filing of Plaintiff’s lawsuit, Plaintiff’s representative disclosed to TA 

Case 5:20-cv-00335-TKW-MJF Document 1 Filed 12/21/20 Page 6 of 9
Page 7 of 9

that Plaintiff underwent hip surgery as a result of her alleged incident. A 

reasonable interpretation of the nature of Plaintiff’s allegations and claimed 

injuries, together with the Affidavit of Courtney M. King, satisfies the amount in 

controversy requirement for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

C. All Prerequisites for Removal Have Been Satisfied

18. Because both of the requirements for federal diversity jurisdiction are 

satisfied, this case is removable to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 

1441, and 1446.

19. The undersigned counsel is authorized by TA to file this Notice of 

Removal, is licensed in the State of Florida and is a member of the Bar of this 

Court.

WHEREFORE, Defendant TA Operating LLC respectfully removes this 

action from the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Jackson County, 

Florida to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441, and requests that this 

Court assume full jurisdiction over the cause herein as provided by law.

Date: December 21, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Courtney M. King

MICHAEL CORRENTI, ESQ.

Florida Bar No. 0039279

COURTNEY M. KING, ESQ.

Florida Bar No. 0039279

COURTNEY M. KING, ESQ.

Case 5:20-cv-00335-TKW-MJF Document 1 Filed 12/21/20 Page 7 of 9
Page 8 of 9

Florida Bar No. 0069389

MCDONALD TOOLE WIGGINS, P.A.

111 N. Magnolia Avenue, Suite 1200

Orlando, FL 32801

Telephone: (407) 246-1800

Facsimile: (407) 246-1895

Primary Service Email: 

mcorrenti@mtwlegal.com; 

cking@mtwlegal.com

Secondary Service Email: 

e.service@mtwlegal.com;

ReidermanvTAOperatingLLC@mtwlegal.com

Attorneys for Defendant, TA Operating LLC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on December 21, 2020, I electronically filed the 

foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send 

notification of such filing to:

Stephanie Nicole Hines, Esq., shines@fbswlaw.com, Warner, Sechrest & 

Butts, P.A., 5200 SW 91st Ter., Suite 101, Gainesville, FL 32608, Attorney 

for Plaintiff

/s/ Courtney M. King

MICHAEL CORRENTI, ESQ.

Florida Bar No. 0039279

COURTNEY M. KING, ESQ.

Florida Bar No. 0069389

MCDONALD TOOLE WIGGINS, P.A.

111 N. Magnolia Avenue, Suite 1200

Orlando, FL 32801

Telephone: (407) 246-1800

Facsimile: (407) 246-1895

Primary Service Email: 

mcorrenti@mtwlegal.com; 

cking@mtwlegal.com

Case 5:20-cv-00335-TKW-MJF Document 1 Filed 12/21/20 Page 8 of 9
Page 9 of 9

Secondary Service Email: 

e.service@mtwlegal.com;

ReidermanvTAOperatingLLC@mtwlegal.com

Attorneys for Defendant, TA Operating LLC 

Case 5:20-cv-00335-TKW-MJF Document 1 Filed 12/21/20 Page 9 of 9