- 1 - 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. _______________ 

MATTHEW CALVIN, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

HUMANA INC., 

a Delaware corporation 

Defendant. 

/ 

DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL 

Defendant Humana Inc. (“Defendant”), by and through its undersigned 

attorneys, hereby gives notice of the removal of the State-court action described 

below pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367, 1441, and 1446, to the United States 

District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and in support thereof shows as 

follows: 

I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

1. On April 27, 2022, Plaintiff Matthew Calvin (“Plaintiff”), individually 

and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a Class Action Complaint (the 

“Complaint”) against Defendant in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit 

in and for Palm Beach County, Florida. See Exhibit A, Summons and Complaint 

(“Compl.”) 

Case 9:22-cv-80804-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 1 of 7
- 2 - 

2. Defendant was served with a copy of the Complaint on May 2, 2021. 

See Exhibit A. A copy of the state court docket is attached as Exhibit B. 

3. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that from August 2020 through May 2021, 

Defendant improperly sent text messages to Plaintiff’s telephone number ending in -

0096 (“Number”) to promote Defendant’s goods and services. Compl. ¶¶ 3, 11-18. 

Plaintiff alleges that his Number is registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry. 

Compl. ¶ 20. Plaintiff alleges that the text messages constituted telemarketing and 

were intended to solicit the sale of consumer goods and/or services. Compl. ¶¶ 21, 

27. 

4. Plaintiff asserts a claim for violation of the Florida Telephone 

Solicitation Act, Fla. Stat. § 501.059, et seq. (Count I) (“Florida Claim”) and three 

claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (Counts II – 

IV) (“Federal Claims”). See Compl. 

5. Plaintiff seeks to represent four classes of individuals, defined as 

follows: 

No Consent Class: All persons in the Florida who, (1) were sent a 

telephonic sales call regarding Defendant's goods and/or services, (2) 

using the same equipment or type of equipment utilized to call Plaintiff. 

Internal Do Not Call Class: All persons within the United States who, 

within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint, were sent a 

text message from Defendant or anyone on Defendant's behalf, to said 

person's cellular telephone number after making a request to Defendant 

to not receive future text messages. 

Do Not Call Registry Class: All persons in the United States who from 

four years prior to the filing of this action (1) were sent a call or text 

Case 9:22-cv-80804-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 2 of 7
- 3 - 

message by or on behalf of Defendant; (2) more than one time within 

any 12-month period; (3) where the person's telephone number had 

been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least thirty days; 

(4) for the purpose of selling Defendant's products and services; and (5) 

for whom Defendant claims (a) it did not obtain prior express written 

consent, or (b) it obtained prior express written consent in the same 

manner as Defendant claims it supposedly obtained prior express 

written consent to call the Plaintiff. 

Seller Identification Class: All persons within the United States who, 

within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint through the 

date of class certification, (1) received two or more text messages within 

any 12-month period, (2) regarding Defendant's property, goods, 

and/or services, (3) to said person's residential telephone number, (4) 

that did not disclose the name of the individual caller, the name of the 

person or entity on whose behalf the call is being made, or a telephone 

number or address at which the person or entity may be contacted. 

Compl. ¶ 38. 

II. REMOVAL IS PROPER BECAUSE THIS COURT HAS FEDERAL 

QUESTION JURISDICTION OVER THE FEDERAL CLAIMS AND 

SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER THE FLORIDA CLAIM 

6. This Court has original jurisdiction over the Federal Claims under the 

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and supplemental jurisdiction over the Florida Claim 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The State-court action may be removed to this Court 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) and 1453(b), and the procedures set forth in 28 

U.S.C. § 1446. 

7. Section 1331 provides federal district courts with “original jurisdiction” 

over all claims arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 

28 U.S.C. § 1331. Federal courts likewise have supplemental jurisdiction over all 

other claims “that are so related to claims in the action within such original 

jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.” 28 U.S.C. § 

Case 9:22-cv-80804-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 3 of 7
- 4 - 

1367(a). 

8. Any civil action, including class actions, brought in state court where 

federal district courts have original jurisdiction may be removed, without regard to 

citizenship or residence of the parties. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a), 1453. 

9. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Federal 

Claims, because federal courts have original jurisdiction over claims that arise under 

the TCPA, a federal statute. See Glasser v. Hilton Grand Vacations Co., 948 F.3d 1301 

(11th Cir. 2020); Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, 565 U.S. 368, 377, 132 S. Ct. 740, 

748 (2012) (“Because federal law creates the right of action and provides the rules of 

decision, Mims's TCPA claim, in 28 U.S.C. §1331's words, plainly ‘aris[es] under” 

the “laws . . . of the United States.’”). 

10. This Court likewise has supplemental jurisdiction over the Florida 

Claim, because it is related to the Federal Claims and within the same case or 

controversy concerning the text messages that Defendant allegedly sent to Plaintiff’s 

telephone number. Speidel v. Am. Honda Fin. Corp., No. 2:14-cv-19-FtM-38CM, 2014 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26778, at *6 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 28, 2014) (exercising supplemental 

jurisdiction over Florida state law claim that “form[ed] part of the same case or 

controversy” as TCPA claim). Indeed, the Florida Claim arises out of the same 

alleged text messages as the Federal Claims. 

11. Accordingly, removal of this action is proper under Sections 1441 and 

1453. Duran v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 878 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1315-16 (S.D. Fla. 

Case 9:22-cv-80804-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 4 of 7
- 5 - 

2012) (finding that TCPA actions are removable). 

III. DEFENDANT HAS COMPLIED WITH ALL REMOVAL 

PROCEDURES.

12. The Complaint was served on Defendant on May 2, 2022. See Exhibit 

A. This Notice of Removal is timely filed within 30 days of such service in 

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). 

13. The Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm 

Beach County, Florida is located within the Southern District of Florida. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 89(c). Therefore, venue for this action is proper in this Court, because the Southern 

District of Florida is the “district and division embracing the place where such action 

is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 

14. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), copies of all process, pleadings, orders, 

and orders served upon Defendant are attached. 

15. The undersigned counsel represents the Defendant. 

16. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), Defendant will promptly 

provide written notice of the filing of this Notice of Removal to Plaintiff and shall file 

a copy of this Notice along with a Notice of Filing Notice of Removal with the Clerk 

of the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, 

Florida is located within the Southern District of Florida 

17. The required filing fee is being tendered to the Clerk of the United 

States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. 

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully pray that the action be removed to 

Case 9:22-cv-80804-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 5 of 7
- 6 - 

this Court and that this Court assume full jurisdiction as if it had been originally filed 

here. 

DATED: June 1, 2022 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/Kimberly J. Donovan

Kimberly J. Donovan 

Florida Bar No. 16496 

SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP 

200 South Biscayne Boulevard, 

Suite 3400 

Miami, Florida 33131 

kimberly.donovan@squirepb.com 

Counsel for Defendant Humana Inc. 

Case 9:22-cv-80804-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 6 of 7
- 7 - 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June 1, 2022, I electronically filed with the 

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

notification of such filing to all counsel of record. 

/s/ Kimberly J. Donovan 

Kimberly J. Donovan 

Case 9:22-cv-80804-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2022 Page 7 of 7