UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

Case No.: 

HEIDI LOPEZ, 

 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP D/B/A 

WALMART SUPERCENTER, STORE #931, 

 

Defendant. 

________________________________________/

 

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

TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR 

ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP (“WalMart”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446, hereby removes to this Court the state 

court action filed in the 19th Judicial Circuit Court in and for Indian River County, Florida, Case 

No. CACE 312022CA0000602 (the “State Court Action”), with full reservation of rights, 

exceptions, and defenses, and in support thereof states: 

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

1. On or about August 18, 2022, Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a Complaint 

against Wal-Mart in the 19th Judicial Circuit Court in and for Indian River County, Florida, i.e., 

the State Court Action. See Complaint attached as Ex. A. 

2. The Complaint was served on Wal-Mart on August 22, 2022. See Ex. B.

3. Plaintiff alleges Wal-Mart was negligent and the cause of injuries she allegedly 

sustained when she slipped and fell due to alleged dangerous conditions. See Complaint ¶¶ 9-10. 

Case 2:22-cv-14333-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 1 of 8
 - 2 - 

Plaintiff alleges she was injured, and also suffered lost wages and incurred medical expenses that 

are on-going in nature. Id. ¶ 10. 

4. Plaintiff alleges she is a resident of Indian River County, Florida. Id. ¶ 2. 

5. The Complaint incorrectly alleges that Wal-Mart is a for-profit corporation formed 

under the laws of the state of Florida, and at all times herein was doing business as WALMART 

SUPERCENTER, STORE #931. Id. ¶ 3. Wal-Mart is a foreign corporation. Composite Ex. D. 

6. On or about February 7, 2022 and June 28, 2022, prior to filing the instant lawsuit, 

Plaintiff’s counsel sent Wal-Mart a pre-suit demand letter identifying medical bills of over 

$353,776.90, and seeking $750,000 in damages. See correspondence attached as Composite Ex. 

C.

7. Accordingly, this matter is removable based on the complete diversity of 

citizenship of the parties and an amount in controversy of over $75,000, exclusive of interest, 

attorney’s fees, and costs. 

8. Wal-Mart has not yet responded to the Complaint, and it reserves all defenses and 

objections to this action, intending no waiver by this removal. 

II. REMOVAL IS PROPER BASED ON DIVERSITY JURISDICTION 

9. 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.” 

10. The State Court Action is subject to removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a) and 

1441(a) because, at this time, this Court has original jurisdiction based upon a complete diversity 

of citizenship of the parties and because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of 

interest and costs. See AAA Abachman Enter., Inc. Stanley Steemer Int’l, Inc., 268 Fed. Appx. 864, 

Case 2:22-cv-14333-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 2 of 8
 - 3 - 

866 (11th Cir. 2008) (case properly removed based on diversity); Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, 

Inc., 608 F.3d 744, 772 (11th Cir. 2010) (a defendant may supplement allegations of complaint 

with facts demonstrating diversity jurisdiction on removal). 

A. The Parties Are Completely Diverse 

(i) Citizenship of Plaintiff 

11. Plaintiff alleges she is a resident of Indian River County, Florida. See Complaint ¶ 

2. Thus, she is a citizen of Florida for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. 

12. “It 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 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51705, at *8 

(S.D. Fla. June 1, 2009) (internal citations omitted); McCormick v. Aderholt, 293 F.3d 1254, 1257-

58 (11th Cir. 2002) (citizenship is equivalent to domicile); Turner v. Wells, 15-CV-61855, 2017 

WL 364428, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 25, 2017) (for purposes of diversity of citizenship, an individual 

person’s citizenship is equivalent to his or her domicile). 

13. Here, Plaintiff’s admitted Indian River County residence is prima facie evidence of 

her Florida domicile, which is equivalent to her Florida citizenship for purposes of establishing 

diversity in this case. 

(ii) Citizenship of Wal-Mart Stores East, LP 

14. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), “a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen 

of every State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of the State or foreign state 

where it has its principal place of business.” 

15. When it comes to limited partnerships, “a federal court must look to the citizenship 

of a partnership’s limited, as well as its general, partners to determine whether there is complete 

diversity.” Muscle Shoals Assocs., Ltd. v. MHF Ins. Ag., Inc., 792 F. Supp. 1224, 1226 (N.D. Ala. 

Case 2:22-cv-14333-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 3 of 8
 - 4 - 

1992); Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1021 (11th 

Cir. 2004) (“for purposes of diversity of citizenship, a limited partnership is a citizen of each state 

in which any of its partners, limited or general, are citizens”) (citing Carden v. Arkoma Assoc., 

494 U.S. 185, 195-96, 110 S. Ct. 1015, 1021, 108 L. Ed. 2d 157 (1990)). 

16. Wal-Mart 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 (f/k/a Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc.), an Arkansas limited liability company whose parent 

company is Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., a Delaware-incorporated company. The principal place of 

business for all entities mentioned is Arkansas. 

17. Thus, Wal-Mart’s citizenship is Delaware and Arkansas for purposes of 

establishing diversity in this case. 

18. At no material time has Wal-Mart 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 Composite Ex. D. 

19. As such, the parties are completely diverse. 

B. The Threshold Amount in Controversy Is Met 

20. The amount in controversy here exceeds $75,000.00, as required by 28 USC § 

1332(a)(1). 

21. Although Plaintiff’s Complaint does not specify an amount in controversy other 

than surpassing the state circuit court’s $30,000.00 jurisdictional minimum, it is clear that her 

claimed damages exceed $75,000.00 based on her pre-suit demand of $750,000, which lists 

medical bills of over $350,000. See Composite Exhibit C; Katz, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51705, at 

Case 2:22-cv-14333-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 4 of 8
 - 5 - 

*15 (defendant met its burden of establishing amount in controversy based on medical bills 

presented in a pre-suit demand). 

22. “Where, as in this case, the complaint alleges an unspecified amount of damages, 

‘the district court is not bound by the plaintiff's representations regarding its claim,’ and may 

review the record for evidence relevant to the amount in controversy.” Do Rests., Inc. v. Aspen 

Specialty Ins. Co., 984 F. Supp. 2d 1342, 1344-45 (S.D. Fla. 2013) (quoting Roe v. Michelin N. 

Am., Inc., 613 F.3d 1058, 1061 (11th Cir. 2010)) (denying plaintiff’s motion to remand where 

defendant provided sufficient evidence that amount in controversy exceeded statutory minimum 

despite the fact that complaint did not claim that specific amount). Moreover, “[i]f the 

jurisdictional amount 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.” Miedema v. Maytag Corp., 450 F.3d 1322, 1330 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting 

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

23. A pre-suit demand that includes medical bills over the jurisdictional threshold is 

sufficient evidence of the amount in controversy. In Katz, this District Court concluded that the 

removing defendant properly established the amount in controversy based on the plaintiff’s presuit demand package that included past and future medical bills. 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51705, at 

*13. The Court specifically was persuaded that “the pre-suit demand package reflect[ed] an honest 

assessment of damages by plaintiffs because,” and, like Plaintiff’s pre-suit demand letter in this 

case, it was “based on medical records provided by the plaintiff.” Id. at 15. 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) (pre-suit demand letters are competent evidence of the amount in controversy.). 

Case 2:22-cv-14333-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 5 of 8
 - 6 - 

24. The evidence provided with this notice of removal demonstrates that Plaintiff’s 

claimed damages exceed $75,000.00. Plaintiff provided a pre-suit demand reflecting medical bills 

of over $350,000. That alone surpasses the necessary amount in controversy. See Katz, 2009 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 51705, at *15 (“the Court is persuaded that the pre-suit demand package reflects an 

honest assessment of damages by Plaintiffs because it is based on medical records provided by the 

Plaintiff”). 

25. Additionally, Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges pain and suffering, lost wages, and loss 

of ability to earn money in the past and future. See Complaint ¶10. 

26. 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. 

27. Accordingly, Wal-Mart has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the 

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

III. REMOVAL IS TIMELY AND VENUE IS PROPER 

28. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1), Wal-Mart files this Notice of Removal 

within thirty days of service of Plaintiff’s Complaint. The thirty-day period commenced on August 

22, 2022, when Plaintiff served her Complaint. 

29. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Southern District of 

Florida because the State Court Action was pending in the 19th Judicial District in and for Indian 

River County. See 28 U.S.C § 89(c). 

IV. ALL OTHER PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR REMOVAL ARE MET 

30. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), Wal-Mart attaches hereto and makes a part of this 

notice of removal a copy of the process, pleadings, and other papers filed in the 19th Judicial 

Case 2:22-cv-14333-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 6 of 8
 - 7 - 

Circuit in and for Indian River County together with a docket sheet from the Clerk of the Court. 

See Composite Ex. E.

31. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), Wal-Mart will promptly serve Plaintiff with a 

copy of this Notice of Removal and also file a copy of this Notice of Removal in the State Court 

Action. 

32. This removal is being signed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. See

28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). 

CONCLUSION 

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

are completely diverse, the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interest, fees, 

and costs, and removal is timely. 

Dated: September 20, 2022 

Respectfully submitted 

By: /s/ Sujey S. Herrera______ 

Sujey S. Herrera, Esq. 

Fla. Bar No. 92445 

Email: sherrera@reedsmith.com

Maximilien Palenzuela, Esq. 

Fla. Bar No. 1031444 

Email: mpalenzuela@reedsmith.com

REED SMITH LLP 

200 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2600 

Miami, FL 33131 

Telephone: (786) 747-0200 

 

Case 2:22-cv-14333-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 7 of 8
 - 8 - 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 20, 2022, the foregoing document was 

electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF filing system. I also certify that 

a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served this date via email upon counsel for Plaintiffs: 

Victoria M. Manglardi, Martinez Manglardi, P.A., 4651 Babcock Street NE, 

victoria@martinezmanglardi.com. 

By: /s/ Sujey S. Herrera_____ 

 Sujey S. Herrera, Esq. 

Case 2:22-cv-14333-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 8 of 8