LIEBLER, GONZALEZ & PORTUONDO

Courthouse Tower - 25th Floor, 44 West Flagler Street, Miami, FL 33130 (305) 379-0400

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

DORIS AGATHA MAYLOR,

Plaintiff,

v.

WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP,

Defendant.

______________________________________/

CASE NO.: 1:22-cv-22782

DEFENDANT WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP’ S NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Defendant WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP (“Walmart”), through undersigned counsel, 

and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441 and 1446(b)(3), and Rule 81(c) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure, removes to this Court the action filed in the 11th Judicial Circuit Court in and for

Miami-Dade County, Florida, Case No. 2022-013514 CA 01 with full reservation of rights, 

exceptions and defenses, and in support thereof states:

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1. On or about July 21, 2022, Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a Complaint 

against Walmart in the 11th Judicial Circuit Court in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida. See

Pl.’s Compl. attached as Ex. A. 

2. The Complaint was served on August 2, 2022. See Service of Process attached as 

Ex. B. 

3. Plaintiff alleges negligence against Walmart because of injuries she allegedly 

sustained when she slipped and fell while at the subject Walmart premises. See Ex. A at ¶7. 

4. Plaintiff alleges she is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Id. at ¶2.

Case 1:22-cv-22782-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 1 of 7
CASE NO.: 1:22-cv-22782

2

LIEBLER, GONZALEZ & PORTUONDO

Courthouse Tower - 25th Floor, 44 West Flagler Street, Miami, FL 33130 (305) 379-0400

5. On or about July 12, 2021, prior to filing the instant lawsuit, Plaintiff sent Walmart 

a pre-suit demand letter offering to settle the claim for $650,000.00. See Pre-Suit Demand Letter 

attached as Ex. C.

1

6. This matter is therefore removable based on diversity of citizenship of the parties, 

and because the amount in controversy is in excess of $75,000.00 exclusive of interest, attorney’s 

fees, and costs. 

7. Walmart attaches hereto and makes a part of this notice a copy of the process, 

pleadings, and other papers filed in the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miam-Dade County together 

with a docket sheet from the Clerk of the Court. See attached as Composite Ex. D. 

8. Walmart reserves the right to amend all defenses and objections in this action after 

the action is removed to this Court.

II. REMOVAL IS TIMELY

9.In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1), Walmart files this Notice of Removal within 

thirty (30) days of the date that it received 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 (30) day period commenced on August 2, 2022, when Plaintiff served her Complaint. 

10. Prior to the service of Plaintiff’s Complaint, Plaintiff sent Walmart a written presuit demand outlining Plaintiff’s claimed damages inclusive of actual medical expenses in 

connection with her alleged incident. 

11. Venue exists in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

because the 11th Judicial District in and for Miami-Dade County, where Plaintiff filed her state 

1 Walmart has not filed the entire complement of medical records which Plaintiff submitted with her pre-suit demand 

letter in order to protect the Plaintiff’s personal information pursuant to the Court’s Administrative Procedures, 6B. 

Should the Court wish to see these documents, Walmart will provide same for an in camera inspection.

Case 1:22-cv-22782-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 2 of 7
CASE NO.: 1:22-cv-22782

3

LIEBLER, GONZALEZ & PORTUONDO

Courthouse Tower - 25th Floor, 44 West Flagler Street, Miami, FL 33130 (305) 379-0400

court Complaint is in Miami-Dade County Florida, which is located within the United States 

District Court for the Southern District of Florida Miami Division. 

III. THERE IS COMPLETE DIVERSITY WITHIN THE PARTIES

12. Under 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 – citizens of different States.” This action satisfies 

the complete diversity of citizenship requirement of 28 USC § 1332(a)(1). 

A. Citizenship of DORIS AGATHA MAYLOR

13. Plaintiff is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida. See Ex. A. 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., 2009 WL 1532129, *3 (S.D.Fla.) (Cohn, J) (internal citations omitted). 

14. Plaintiff’s Miami-Dade County, Florida residence is prima facie evidence of her

domicile which is equivalent to citizenship for purposes of establishing diversity in this case. See 

Katz, 2009 WL 1532129 at *3. 

B. Citizenship of WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP

15. At the time of the alleged incident, and currently, Walmart Stores East, LP, is a 

Delaware limited partnership, of which WSE Management, LLC is the general partner, and WSE 

Investment, LLC is the limited partner. The sole member of WSE Management, LLC and WSE 

Investment, LLC is Wal-Mart Stores East, LLC (fka Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc.), an Arkansas 

limited liability company whose parent company is Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. The principal place of 

business for all entities mentioned is Bentonville, Arkansas. At no time material has Wal-Mart 

Case 1:22-cv-22782-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 3 of 7
CASE NO.: 1:22-cv-22782

4

LIEBLER, GONZALEZ & PORTUONDO

Courthouse Tower - 25th Floor, 44 West Flagler Street, Miami, FL 33130 (305) 379-0400

Stores East, LP, or its general or limited partners, been a citizen of Florida. See Florida Department 

of State, Division of Corporations, Detail by Entity Name attached as Ex. E.

IV. AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY

16. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. Although Plaintiff’s Complaint 

does not specify an amount in controversy other than the state court $30,000.00 jurisdictional 

minimum, it is clear from Plaintiff’s pre-suit demand that her claimed damages exceed the 

jurisdictional minimum in this Court of $75,000.00. See Katz v. J.C. Penney Corp., Inc., 2009 WL 

1532129, *5 (S.D. Fla. June 1, 2009) (concluding the defendant met its jurisdictional burden of 

establishing the amount in controversy based on information received from the plaintiffs in the 

pre-suit demand package); see also Mick v. De Vilbiss Air Power Co., No. 6:10-CV-1390-ORL, 

2010 WL 5140849, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 14, 2010) (discussing pre-suit demand letters are 

competent evidence of the amount in controversy.). 

17. Where, as here, a plaintiff makes “an unspecified demand for damages in state 

court, a removing defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in 

controversy more likely than not exceeds the . . . jurisdictional requirement.” Tapscott v. MS 

Dealer Service Corp., 77 F.3d 1353, 1357 (11th Cir. 1996), abrogated on other grounds by Cohen 

v. Office Depot, Inc., 204 F.3d 1069 (11th Cir. 2000). 

18. “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 (S.D. Fla. June 1, 2009) 

(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, 

Case 1:22-cv-22782-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 4 of 7
CASE NO.: 1:22-cv-22782

5

LIEBLER, GONZALEZ & PORTUONDO

Courthouse Tower - 25th Floor, 44 West Flagler Street, Miami, FL 33130 (305) 379-0400

pre-suit settlement offers and demands may be considered in evaluating whether a case has been 

properly removed.” Id. 

19. The relevant portions of Plaintiff’s pre-suit demand conclusively establish that the 

amount in controversy exceeds the $75,000.00 jurisdictional minimum. Plaintiff’s July 12, 2021

pre-suit demand letter outlines her past medical bills of $171,894.19. See Ex. C.

20. In addition to Plaintiff’s alleged medical condition, Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges 

pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of the capacity for the enjoyment of life, loss of earnings, 

loss of ability to earn money and aggravation of a pre-existing condition. See Ex. A at ¶12.

21. These representations sufficiently and conclusively establish by a preponderance 

of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the requisite $75,000.00 jurisdictional 

minimum for this Court to retain jurisdiction. Numerous district court decisions support this 

conclusion.

22. For example, in Katz v. J.C. Penney Corp., this Court concluded that the removing 

defendant properly established the amount in controversy by addressing information received from 

Plaintiff’s pre-suit demand package. Katz, 2009 WL 1532129 at 4. The Court specifically noted it 

was persuaded that the pre-suit demand package reflected an honest assessment of damages by 

plaintiffs because, like Plaintiff’s pre-suit demand letter in this case, it was based on medical 

records provided by the plaintiff. Id. 

23. Here, Plaintiff’s pre-suit demand letter is an honest assessment of her claimed 

damages as it is based on the following:

a. Plaintiff’s past medical bills ($171,894.19 as of the demand letter)

b. future medical care See Katz, 2009 WL 1532129 at 4. 

c. Pain and suffering

Case 1:22-cv-22782-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 5 of 7
CASE NO.: 1:22-cv-22782

6

LIEBLER, GONZALEZ & PORTUONDO

Courthouse Tower - 25th Floor, 44 West Flagler Street, Miami, FL 33130 (305) 379-0400

24. This evidence demonstrates the Plaintiff’s claimed damages in the instant case far 

exceed $75,000.00. Accordingly, Walmart has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the 

amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum, rendering removal proper. 

25. Furthermore, prior to filing this removal, Defendant conferred with Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff refused to stipulate to damages being $75,000.00 or less and advised that there are 

additional pending medical bills. 

V. CONCLUSION

This action is removable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441 and 1446 because there 

exists complete diversity in this matter as the Plaintiff and Walmart are citizens of different states, 

and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00 exclusive of interest, fees, and costs. Upon 

filing of this Notice of Removal, Walmart will promptly give written notice to Plaintiff, through 

her attorneys of record, and the Clerk of the Circuit Court for the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for 

Miami-Dade County, Florida. 

WHEREFORE, Defendant, WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP, respectfully requests the 

Notice of Removal be accepted as good and sufficient as required by law, and that the aforesaid 

action, Case No. 2022-013514 CA 01, on the docket of the Court for the 11th Judicial Circuit in 

and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, be removed from that Court to the United States District 

Court for the Southern District of Florida and that this Court assume full and complete jurisdiction 

thereof and issue all necessary orders and grant all general equitable relief to which Walmart is 

entitled. 

Case 1:22-cv-22782-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 6 of 7
CASE NO.: 1:22-cv-22782

7

LIEBLER, GONZALEZ & PORTUONDO

Courthouse Tower - 25th Floor, 44 West Flagler Street, Miami, FL 33130 (305) 379-0400

Respectfully submitted,

LIEBLER, GONZALEZ & PORTUONDO

Attorneys for Defendant

Courthouse Tower - 25th Floor

44 West Flagler Street

Miami, FL 33130

(305) 379-0400

service@lgplaw.com

By: /s/ Christine M. Manzo

CHRISTINE M. MANZO

Florida Bar No. 52121

NICHOLAS G. NEVILLE

Florida Bar No. 123893

AMANDA J. PHILLIPS

Florida Bar No. 111701

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 1st day of September, 2022, I electronically caused the 

foregoing document to be filed with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF and will send a notice of 

electronic filing to the following: Evan S. Abel (cbarros@rubensteinlaw.com; 

eservice@rubensteinlaw.com), Rubenstein Law P.A., Attorneys for Plaintiff, 9130 S. Dadeland 

Blvd, Penthouse Suite, Miami, FL 33156.

/s/ Christine M. Manzo 

CHRISTINE M. MANZO

Case 1:22-cv-22782-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 7 of 7