UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-CIV-61034

BROWARD DIVISION

MERTA MAE SINCLAIR,

Plaintiff,

vs.

WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP,

Defendant. /

DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores East, LP (“Walmart”), by and through its undersigned 

counsel, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441 and 1446, and Rule 81(c), Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, files this Notice of Removal removing to this Court the action filed in the Circuit Court 

of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and for Broward County, Florida, Case No. CACE-22-006245 

Division 25, with full reservation of rights, exceptions and defenses, and in support thereof states:

I. Factual Background

1. On or about April 28, 2022, Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a Complaint 

for Damages (“Complaint”) against Walmart in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in 

and for Broward County, Florida. See Complaint attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”

2. The Complaint was served on Walmart on or about May 2, 2022. See Return of 

Service attached hereto as Exhibit “B.”

3. In her Complaint, Plaintiff purports to allege a claim sounding in negligence against 

Walmart as a result of injuries she allegedly sustained on or about May 28, 2021, while in the 

Walmart store located at 1885 North Pine Island Road, Plantation, Broward County, Florida. 

Case 0:22-cv-61034-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 1 of 9
2

4. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff was on the premises of the Walmart store when 

“a dirty, slippery substance ... on the floor” caused Plaintiff “to slip and fall and seriously injure 

herself.” See Complaint, at ¶6.

5. Plaintiff alleges that Walmart breached its duty to Plaintiff by negligently 

maintaining its premises, in that it, among other things, purportedly “failed to maintain ... common 

areas in a safe and proper condition”; “was negligent in creating or permitting the aforementioned 

dangerous and hazardous condition to remain upon the premises”; “failed to warn the Plaintiff ... 

of the aforementioned condition and the risk involved ... .” See Complaint, at ¶9, 10, and 11. 

Plaintiff further alleges that, as a result of Walmart’s alleged negligence, Plaintiff “was severely 

injured.” See Complaint, at ¶12. Further, Plaintiff alleges that “as a direct and proximate result” of 

Walmart’s alleged negligence, Plaintiff “was injured in and about her body and extremities, 

suffered pain therefrom, suffered physical handicap, lost wages, loss of ability to earn money in

the past and in the future, aggravation of a previously existing condition and suffered the inability 

to lead a normal life; all of which are present and continuing in nature.” See Complaint, at ¶13.

6. Plaintiff alleges that at all times material she was a resident of Broward County, 

Florida. See Complaint, at ¶2.

7. Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, is a foreign limited partnership and maintains 

its principal place of business in Bentonville, Arkansas. See Florida Department of State, Division 

of Corporations, Detail by Entity Name attached hereto as Exhibit “C.”

8. In her Complaint, Plaintiff asserts that her damages exceed $30,000.00. See

Complaint, at ¶1.

9. However, based on her pre-suit Demand Letter, sent to Walmart on or about

December 7, 2021, Plaintiff claimed medical bills of $126,036.19 as a result of the alleged incident, 

Case 0:22-cv-61034-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 2 of 9
3

far in excess of the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold of this Court. See Demand Letter attached here 

as Exhibit “D.” Plaintiff also alleges that she “incurred medical expenses in the treatment of 

injuries and will continue to incur said expenses in the future.” See Complaint, at ¶14.

10. The threshold requirements for this Court’s jurisdiction have thus been met and the 

matter is removable based on diversity of citizenship of the parties. The matter is removable based 

on diversity of citizenship because Plaintiff and Walmart are citizens of different states and the 

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interest, attorney’s fees, and costs.

11. All other state court documents are attached as Composite Exhibit “E.”

12. Walmart reserves the right to raise all defenses and objections in this action after 

the action is removed to this Court. 

II. Removal is Timely

13. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1), Walmart is filing its Notice of Removal 

on June 1, 2022, within thirty (30) days of the date that it received or was served a copy of 

Plaintiff’s Complaint. Plaintiff’s Complaint is the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief 

upon which Plaintiff’s action is based. The thirty-day period under Section 1446(b)(1) commenced 

on May 2, 2022, when Plaintiff served her Complaint on Walmart.

14. Venue is proper in this Court because the state court where Plaintiff filed her

Complaint, the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and for Broward County, Florida, is 

located within this Court’s jurisdiction.

III. There is Complete Diversity Between the Parties

15. In accordance with 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— (1) citizens of different States....”

This action satisfies the complete diversity of citizenship requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).

Case 0:22-cv-61034-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 3 of 9
4

a. Citizenship of Walmart

16. For purposes of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441, a limited partnership is deemed to be 

a citizen of the State(s) of all of its members. See Carden v. Arkoma Associates, 494 U.S. 185, 195 

(1990). Defendant Wal-Mart Stores East, LP is a limited partnership organized under the laws of 

Delaware, 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. Both WSE 

Management, LLC, and WSE Investment, LLC, are Delaware limited-liability companies with 

their principal places of business each located in Arkansas. Wal-Mart Stores East, LLC, is the sole 

member of both WSE Management, LLC, and WSE Investment, LLC. Wal-Mart Stores East, LLC, 

is an Arkansas limited-liability company, with its principal place of business in Arkansas. Walmart 

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

with its principal place of business in Arkansas. Walmart Inc. is a publicly traded company on the 

New York Stock Exchange and traded under the symbol WMT. No publicly traded entity owns 

more than 10% of Walmart Inc.

b. Citizenship of Plaintiff

17. Plaintiff was at all times material a resident of Broward County, Florida. See

Complaint, at ¶2. Although Plaintiff’s Complaint does not specifically state Plaintiff’s citizenship, 

“[i]t 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., No. 09-CV-60067, 2009 WL 1532129, at *3 (S.D. Fla. June 1, 2009). 

Complete diversity thus exists as between the parties, Plaintiff and Walmart.

IV. The Amount in Controversy Requirement Has Been Met

18. Plaintiff’s Complaint does not specify the amount of her damages; rather, she 

alleges that her damages exceed $30,000.00 (the threshold amount in controversy for Circuit Court 

Case 0:22-cv-61034-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 4 of 9
5

under Florida law). It is clear, however, from the nature of the damages alleged in her Complaint, 

her presuit demand, and medical bills that the Plaintiff’s claimed damages exceed the $75,000.00 

jurisdictional minimum for this Court. See Katz, 2009 WL 1532129 at *5 (concluding the 

defendant met its jurisdictional burden of establishing the amount in controversy based on the 

medical bills cited in plaintiff’s pre-suit demand); see also Mick v. De Vilbiss Air Power Co., 6:10-

CV-1390-ORL, 2010 WL 5140849, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 14, 2010) (relying on pre-suit demand 

letter seeking $175,000.00 in damages as competent evidence of amount in controversy and 

denying Plaintiff’s motion to remand).

19. Where a complaint seeks indeterminate damages, “removal from state court is 

[jurisdictionally] proper if it is facially apparent from the complaint that the amount in controversy 

exceeds the jurisdictional requirement.” Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, 608 F.3d 744, 754 (11th 

Cir. 2010).1 If satisfaction of the amount in controversy is “not facially apparent from the 

complaint, the court should look to the notice of removal and may require evidence relevant to the 

amount in controversy at the time the case was removed.” Id. at 754.

20. “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, 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 

1 Although Pretka involved removal under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, the court 

interpreted and applied the general removal procedures of § 1446. See id. at 756 & n.11.

Case 0:22-cv-61034-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 5 of 9
6

offers and demands may be considered in evaluating whether a case has been properly removed.” 

Id.

21. Similarly, in Stramiello v. Petsmart, No. 8:10-cv-659-T-33TGW, 2010 WL 

2136550 (M.D. Fla. May 26, 2010), the district court determined that the defendant successfully 

met its burden of proving that the amount in controversy was in excess of $75,000.00 where the 

plaintiff’s medical bills alone totaled $108,351.92. Much like Plaintiff in the instant matter, the 

plaintiff in Stramiello alleged that his injuries were permanent and that he suffered “bodily injury, 

including a permanent injury to the body as a whole, pain and suffering of both a physical and 

mental nature, disability, physical impairment, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss 

of capacity for the enjoyment of life, aggravation of an existing condition, expense of 

hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, loss of earnings, loss of ability to earn 

money and loss of ability to lead and enjoy a normal life.” Id. at *1. The court found that, at the 

time of removal, defendant had received documentation from the plaintiff showing total medical 

bills in the amount of $108,351.92, and thus defendant had met its burden to establish the required 

amount in controversy for federal subject matter jurisdiction. See id. at *4.

22. Likewise, in Wilson v. Target Corp., 10-80451-CIV-MARRA, 2010 WL 3632794, 

at *4 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 14, 2010), plaintiff’s detailed pre-suit demand letter revealed she had 

sustained over $100,000.00 in past medical expenses and would suffer an additional one million 

dollars in future medical expenses due to an alleged accident. The court found that the detailed 

pre-suit letter delineated the extent of plaintiff’s injuries, the physicians who treated her, and the 

medical care she received from each of those physicians. Because of this detail, the court found 

that “the pre-suit demand can be considered reliable evidence that Wilson’s damages will exceed 

$75,000.” Id. at *4.

Case 0:22-cv-61034-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 6 of 9
7

23. Here, Plaintiff’s pre-suit demand establishes that her claimed medical expenses 

were $126,036.19 as of December 2021. This amount exceeds the $75,000.00 jurisdictional 

threshold of this Court, even without considering any alleged future medical expenses

subsequently incurred by Plaintiff. Where the jurisdictional amount in controversy has been met 

with medical bills, further discussion of any future injuries or damages is not necessary. Stramiello, 

2010 WL 2136550 at n.2.

24. Even so, Plaintiff nonetheless alleges that “as a direct and proximate result” of 

Walmart’s alleged negligence, Plaintiff “was injured in and about her body and extremities, 

suffered pain therefrom, suffered physical handicap, lost wages, loss of ability to earn money in 

the past and in the future, aggravation of a previously existing condition and suffered the inability 

to lead a normal life; all of which are present and continuing in nature.” See Complaint, at ¶13.

Thus, Plaintiff expressly contemplates future damages in addition to those presently claimed.

25. As a result, the amount in controversy in this matter exceeds the jurisdictional 

minimum, and removal is thus proper.

V. Conclusion

26. Walmart has timely filed this Notice of Removal and meets the jurisdictional 

requirements for removal. Removal of Plaintiff’s underlying state court action is proper pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441 and 1446. Upon filing of this Notice of Removal, Walmart will 

promptly give written notice of the same to Plaintiff, through his attorney of record, and the Clerk 

of the Circuit Court.

WHEREFORE, Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores East, LP respectfully requests this Notice of 

Removal be accepted as adequate under federal law, and that Plaintiff’s state court action, Case 

No. CACE-22-006245 Division 25, on the docket of the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, 

in and for Broward, Florida, be removed from that court to the United States District Court for the 

Case 0:22-cv-61034-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 7 of 9
8

Southern District of Florida, Broward Division, and that this Court assume full and complete 

jurisdiction over the case, issuing all necessary orders along with any other relief that the Court 

deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Clayton D. Hackney 

Clayton D. Hackney 

Florida Bar No. 26163

Rebecca W. de la Zerda

Florida Bar No. 1031620

FASI & DIBELLO, P.A.

150 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 1010

Miami, Florida 33131

Telephone: (305) 537-0469

Facsimile: (305) 503-7405

hackney@fasidibellolaw.com

delazerda@fasidibellolaw.com

blakewindhorst@fasidibellolaw.com

pleadings@fasidibellolaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores East, LP

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished this 

1st day of June 2022, via e-mail to: William C. Ruggiero, Esq. (ruggiero@wcrlaw.com), Law 

Office of William C. Ruggiero, Attorney for Plaintiff, Museum Plaza, Suite 703, 200 South 

Andrews Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 33301.

By: /s/ Clayton D. Hackney

Case 0:22-cv-61034-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 8 of 9
Case 0:22-cv-61034-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 9 of 9