UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: __________________ CIV

STATE CASE NO.: CACE 22-006246

HILDA ADRIANA PANCHAME

Plaintiff,

vs.

TARGET CORPORATION, 

Defendant.

_____________________________/

DEFENDANT TARGET CORPORATION'S

NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Defendant, TARGET CORPORATION, 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, HILDA ADRIANA PANCHAME v. TARGET CORPORATION, filed in the Circuit 

Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, Case No.: 22-

006246. As grounds for this removal, the Defendant states the following:

1. Target Corporation 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 HILDA ADRIANA 

PANCHAME v. TARGET CORPORATION, Case No.: 22-006246. See Pl.’s Compl. attached as 

Defendant’s Exhibit "A."

2. In the Complaint, the Plaintiff, HILDA ADRIANA PANCHAME (hereinafter 

“PANCHAME”) alleges that on or about December 24, 2020, she was a customer at the TARGET

store located at 16901 Miramar Parkway in Miramar, Florida when she slipped and fell due to a 

liquid on the floor. Id. Plaintiff has brought a cause of action for negligence against TARGET as 

a result of such incident. Id.

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

Case 0:22-cv-61040-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 1 of 8
provisions of 28 U.S.C. §1332, and is one which may be removed to this Court by the Defendant 

TARGET CORPORATION 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 Minnesota citizens: The Plaintiffs’ Complaint indicates 

PANCHAME is a resident of Broward County, Florida. See Exhibit A ¶ 2-3. 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 

Plaintiff to determine her citizenship. The results of this investigation, which were 

received on May 18, 2022, reflect the Plaintiff’s current address and all of her prior 

addresses and yielded no addresses within the State of Minnesota. See Aff. of 

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

Case 0:22-cv-61040-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 2 of 8
b. Defendant Target Corporation is a citizen of the State of Minnesota: TARGET 

CORPORATION is a foreign, for profit corporation registered in the State of 

Minnesota with its headquarters located in Minneapolis, Minnesota. See Aff. of 

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

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 the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges damages in excess of $30,000.00 exclusive of 

interests and costs, but with no dollar value affixed to any of the items of damages being claimed. 

See Exhibit A ¶ 1.

8. Nevertheless, if 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 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.

Case 0:22-cv-61040-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 3 of 8
11. In this case, PANCHAME is alleging that as a result of the subject incident she sustained 

multiple injuries to her neck, low back, left hip, left knee, left shoulder and left ankle. The injury 

to Plaintiff’s neck includes a disc herniation at level C2-3 and right paracentral disc herniation at 

C4-5. See Exhibit “B.” The injury to Plaintiff’s low back includes a disc bulge at L1-2 and L4-5, 

and a disc herniation at L5-S1. Id. The injury to Plaintiff’s left knee includes a tear to the medial 

and lateral meniscus for which Plaintiff underwent PRP injections, and eventually, surgical 

intervention on September 27, 2021. Id. The surgery to Plaintiff’s left knee consisted of an 

arthroscopy, partial medial meniscectomy, medial plica resection, osteochondral defect medial 

femoral condyle ablation, and chondroplasty debridement of three compartments. Id.

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

Plaintiff’s past medical bills, which amount to approximately $108,316.91. Id.

13. 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. 

14. The undersigned counsel for TARGET has had an opportunity to review the 

aforementioned medical records and bills, and attests to the fact that if awarded, the value of the 

Plaintiff’s claimed injuries would exceed the jurisdictional requirements of this Court. Id.; 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).

15. Moreover, prior to the filing of this lawsuit, TARGET received a demand letter from 

Plaintiff’s counsel dated October 26, 2021, setting forth a settlement demand well in excess of the 

Case 0:22-cv-61040-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 4 of 8
$75,000.00 amount in controversy requirement. See Exhibit “B.”

16. 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 

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.

17. "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, if 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).

18. Based on: the types of injuries suffered by PANCHAME; her ensuing medical treatment 

and left knee arthroscopic surgery allegedly as a result of the subject incident; Plaintiff’s past 

medical bills which amount to approximately $108,316.91; Plaintiff’s pre-suit demand which by 

far exceeds the $75,000.00 jurisdictional threshold of this Court; and the monetary compensation 

related to pain and suffering that could be awarded to the Plaintiff by a jury, the Defendant has 

provided the necessary “other paper” which allows Target and the Court to ascertain that the 

Case 0:22-cv-61040-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 5 of 8
amount in controversy exceeds the $75,000 jurisdictional value.

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

19. 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, 

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.”

20. 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.

Case 0:22-cv-61040-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 6 of 8
21. The Plaintiff’s Complaint was served upon the Defendant TARGET CORPORATION on 

May 4, 2022.

22. Therefore, this Notice of Removal is timely filed and without waiver by TARGET, 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).

Procedural Matters

23. 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.

24. Target 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).

25. Copies of pleadings and filings made in the Circuit Court Case No.: 22-006246 are attached 

hereto and made a part hereof as Composite Exhibit "C."

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 June 2, 2022 to:

Meranda Reifschneider, Esquire

Rubenstein Law, P.A.

9130 S. Dadeland Blvd., PH

Miami, Florida 33156

(305) 661-6000

(305) 670-7555 E-Fax

meranda@rubensteinlaw.com

jdolfi@rubensteinlaw.com

eservice@rubsensteinlaw.com

Attorneys for the Plaintiff, 

Case 0:22-cv-61040-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 7 of 8
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

SGalvan@Florida-Law.com

Thomas. W. Paradise, Esquire

Florida Bar No.: 907235

TParadise@Florida-Law.com

Agarwood@Florida-Law.com

Case 0:22-cv-61040-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 8 of 8