150 SOUTHEAST SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 1200 · MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 

TELEPHONE: 305-379-3686 · FACSIMILE: 305-379-3690

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO: 

ROBERTO CORDOVA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TARGET CORPORATION

Defendant.

/

TARGET CORPORATION’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Defendant, TARGET CORPORATION (“Target”), by and through its 

undersigned counsel, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446, and Rule 

81(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby removes to this Honorable Court 

the action, Case No. 2022-004769-CA (01), filed in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in 

and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, with full reservation of rights, exceptions, and 

defenses, and in support thereof states:

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1. On or about March 14, 2022, Plaintiff commenced the instant action by 

filing a Complaint (“Complaint”) in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court in and for 

Miami-Dade County, Florida. See Complaint, attached as Exhibit “A.”

2. Plaintiff’s Complaint was served on Target via its Registered Agent on 

or about May 9, 2022. See Proof of Service, attached as Exhibit “B.”

3. Within the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges negligence against Target 

because of injuries Plaintiff allegedly suffered on April 26, 2021, after an alleged slip 

Case 1:22-cv-22993-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/19/2022 Page 1 of 12
2

150 SOUTHEAST SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 1200 · MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 

TELEPHONE: 305-379-3686 · FACSIMILE: 305-379-3690

and fall at a Target store located at 21265 Biscayne Blvd, in Aventura, Florida

(“subject store”). See Exhibit “A” at ¶¶ 3, 5.

4. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that while a customer at the subject store 

on April 26, 2021, he slipped and fell on a “substance which had puddled on the floor 

of the produce section” due to Target’s negligent failure to maintain its premises in a 

reasonably safe condition; remedy/eliminate a dangerous condition, and/or warn 

Plaintiff as to the existence of the alleged dangerous condition. Id. at ¶¶ 7-11.

5. The Complaint generally alleges this is an action for damages in excess 

of $30,000.00 and therefore, meets the minimum state circuit court jurisdictional 

requirement. Id. at ¶ 1.

6. Further, the Complaint alleges that as a result of Plaintiff’s fall, he “was 

injured in and about his body and extremities and/or aggravated a pre-existing 

condition; suffered pain therefrom; suffered physical handicap; suffered 

disfigurement; suffered mental pain and suffering; suffered loss of income in the past 

and will do so in the future; suffered loss for the capacity for the enjoyment of life 

and/or incurred medical expenses for the care and treatment of his injuries. Said 

injuries are permanent and are continuing in nature, and the Plaintiff will continue 

to suffer these losses and impairments in the future.” Id. at ¶ 15. 

7. Plaintiff readily concedes within the Complaint that he “was and is a 

resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida.” Id. at ¶ 2. Plaintiff’s allegation that he 

resides in Florida is confirmed by his Answers to Interrogatory No. 3 and medical 

records for the medical treatment he allegedly received as a result of the April 26, 

Case 1:22-cv-22993-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/19/2022 Page 2 of 12
3

150 SOUTHEAST SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 1200 · MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 

TELEPHONE: 305-379-3686 · FACSIMILE: 305-379-3690

2021 incident. See Answers to Interrogatories and Medical Records showing 

Plaintiff’s Florida citizenship attached as Exhibit “C” and “D” respectively. 

8. Target is a foreign corporation organized and existing under the laws of 

the State of Minnesota. Target maintains its principal place of business in 

Minneapolis, Minnesota. See 2022 Annual Report and Florida Department of State, 

Division of Corporations Entity Detail attached as Composite Exhibit “E.”

9. On June 14, 2022, Target propounded its First Set of Interrogatories 

upon Plaintiff. On August 19, 2022, Plaintiff served his Answers to Target’s First 

Set of Interrogatories. See Plaintiff’s Answers to Target’s Interrogatories, attached 

hereto as Exhibit “C.”

10. In his Answers to Interrogatories, Plaintiff claims to have sustained 

injuries to his lower back which causes pain to his right leg. He also claims that his 

medical treatment as a result of the alleged injuries is ongoing. See Exhibit “C.”

11. On June 14, 2022, Target propounded its First Request upon 

Production on Plaintiff. On August 19, 2022, Plaintiff served his Responses to 

Target’s First Request for Production which including medical records and bills which 

evidenced his medical treatment to date and future care recommendations. See

Plaintiff’s Responses Target’s First Request for Production, attached hereto as 

Exhibit “F.” 

12. Based on the medical bills produced by Plaintiff to date, Plaintiff has 

incurred $23,455.85 in past medical bills. See Medical Bills produced as Exhibit “G.” 

13. In response to non-party subpoenas, Target obtained Plaintiff’s medical 

records from Dr. Anthony J. Hall on September 2, 2022. Those medical records 

Case 1:22-cv-22993-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/19/2022 Page 3 of 12
4

150 SOUTHEAST SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 1200 · MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 

TELEPHONE: 305-379-3686 · FACSIMILE: 305-379-3690

indicate that in the future Plaintiff will require additional medical treatment costing 

several thousands of dollars. See Plaintiff’s Medical Records from Dr. Anthony J. 

Hall dated June 22, 2022, attached as Exhibit “H.”

14. Specifically, Dr. Hall opines that Plaintiff will require significant 

additional physical therapy services for any acute flare-ups to control pain and 

dysfunction which he will need annually or bi-annually at a cost of $3,000 to $5,000 

per year. He also opines he will require chronic anti-inflammatory and pain 

medication annually at a cost of $1500 to $2000 annually. He also opines he will 

require lumbar epidural steroid or facet injections (administered in sets of three) 

twice annually at a cost of $6000 to $14000 per injection. Finally he opines that 

lumbar surgery is indicated at a cost of $75,000 to $100,000. Id. 

15. Accordingly, based on the totality of Plaintiff’s responses to Target’s 

discovery requests and the Plaintiff’s medical records, it is clear this matter is 

removable based on diversity of citizenship of the parties, and because the claimed 

amount in controversy is in excess of $75,000.00 exclusive of interest, attorney’s fees, 

and costs.

16. As part of this Notice of Removal, Target has attached a copy of the 

verified returned service of process, pleadings, and other papers filed in the Eleventh 

Judicial Circuit Court in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, together with the 

docket sheet from the Clerk of the Court. See State Court Filings, attached as Exhibit 

“I.” 

17. Target reserves the right to raise all defenses and objections in this 

action after the action is removed in this Court.

Case 1:22-cv-22993-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/19/2022 Page 4 of 12
5

150 SOUTHEAST SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 1200 · MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 

TELEPHONE: 305-379-3686 · FACSIMILE: 305-379-3690

REMOVAL IS TIMELY

18. This Notice of Removal is being filed within thirty (30) days of Target 

being served with Plaintiff’s Responses to Target’s Discovery and its receipt of 

medical records from which it first was ascertained that the case is one which 

removable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446. See Ex’s C, F, H.

19. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446, “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. Venue exists in the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of Florida, Miami Division, because the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court in 

and for Miami-Dade County is located in Miami, Florida, which is located within the 

United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division.

THERE IS COMPLETE DIVERSITY WITHIN THE PARTIES

21. Pursuant to 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.” 

22. This action satisfies the complete diversity of citizenship requirement of 

28 USC § 1332(a)(1) because Plaintiff is a citizen of Florida and Target is a citizen of 

Minnesota.

A. Citizenship of Defendant, Target Corporation:

Case 1:22-cv-22993-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/19/2022 Page 5 of 12
6

150 SOUTHEAST SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 1200 · MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 

TELEPHONE: 305-379-3686 · FACSIMILE: 305-379-3690

23. Target is a foreign for profit corporation organized under the laws of 

Minnesota with its principal place of business in Minneapolis, Minnesota. See Ex. 

“E.” Target is therefore a citizen of the State of Minnesota for purposes of diversity 

jurisdiction, which is the state of its incorporation and principal place of business. At 

no time material to this lawsuit has Target been a citizen of Florida. 

B. Citizenship of Plaintiff, Roberto Cordova:

24. At all times material to this action, Plaintiff “was a resident of MiamiDade County, Florida.” Ex. “A” at ¶ 2. Although Plaintiff’s Complaint does not 

expressly use the word “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 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51705, at *7-8 (S.D. Fla. June 1, 

2009); see also E.S.Y., Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 217 F. Supp. 3d 1356, 1359 n.2 (S.D. 

Fla. 2015) (noting that there is a presumption that the state in which a person resides 

at any time is also the person’s domicile).

25. In addition to the allegations of residency in his Complaint, Plaintiff’s 

answers to Interrogatories, and his medical records showing ongoing treatment and 

care in Florida further establish that Plaintiff intends to remain in Florida and 

evidences his citizenship in Florida. See Plaintiff’s medical records in Ex’s. “C, D, H”.

26. “Diversity jurisdiction is determined at the time of filing the complaint, 

or if the case has been removed, at the time of removal.” PTA-Fla, Inc. v. ZTE USA, 

Inc., 844 F.3d 1299, 1306 (11th Cir. 2016) (citing Tillman v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, 

253 F.3d 1302, 1306 n.1 (11th Cir. 2001)).

Case 1:22-cv-22993-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/19/2022 Page 6 of 12
7

150 SOUTHEAST SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 1200 · MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 

TELEPHONE: 305-379-3686 · FACSIMILE: 305-379-3690

AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY

27. The amount in controversy in this lawsuit clearly exceeds $75,000.00. 

Although Plaintiff’s Complaint does not specify an amount in controversy, it is clear 

from the sampling of Plaintiff’s medical records and bills received to date, that 

Plaintiff’s claimed damages exceed the jurisdictional minimum for this Court of 

$75,000.00. See Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza, II, Inc., 608 F.3d 759 (11th Cir. 2010)

(discussing the binding law in the Eleventh Circuit that a defendant may submit a 

wide range of evidence in order to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of removal) 

(emphasis added); Williams v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 

2001).

28. Where like here, the jurisdictional amount is not facially apparent on 

the face of Plaintiff’s Complaint; the court will look to the notice of removal and any 

accompanying documents relevant to the amount in controversy at the time the case 

was removed. Pretka, 608 F.3d at 759; Williams, 269 F.3d at 1319; see also Tapscott 

v. MS Dealer Service Corp., 77 F.3d 1353, 1357 (11th Cir. 1996) (discussing that when 

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).”

29. Moreover, Eleventh Circuit precedent permits district courts to use their 

judicial experience and common sense in determining whether the case stated in a 

complaint meets federal jurisdictional requirements. Roe v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 

613 F.3d 1058, 1062 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting Pretka, 608 F.3d at 754). Furthermore, 

a removing defendant, is not required to prove the amount in controversy beyond all 

Case 1:22-cv-22993-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/19/2022 Page 7 of 12
8

150 SOUTHEAST SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 1200 · MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 

TELEPHONE: 305-379-3686 · FACSIMILE: 305-379-3690

doubt or to banish all uncertainty about it. See Pretka, 608 F.3d at 754. Thus, all that 

is required is that Target show by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount 

in controversy in the instant case exceeds $75,000.00. Id at 752.

30. Additionally, 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. See Katz, 2009 WL 1532129 at 

*4 (citing Lowery v. Alabama Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1213-1214 (11th Cir. 2007)). 

“[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)). 

31. As of August 2022, Plaintiff’s past medical bills totaled Twenty Three 

Thousand Four Hundred Fifty Five Dollars ($23,455.85). See Ex. “G.” This sum does 

not include the over $150,000 in anticipated future care costs that Dr. Hall has 

recommended Plaintiff will need as a result of his alleged injuries. See Ex. “H.” 

32. Further, none of the above sums include amounts for Plaintiff’s alleged 

pain and suffering, disability, mental anguish, past and future wage losses, and past 

and future loss of earning capacity as demanded in the Plaintiff’s Complaint. See Ex. 

“A” ¶ 15. 

33. 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 remove the action from state 

court.

Case 1:22-cv-22993-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/19/2022 Page 8 of 12
9

150 SOUTHEAST SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 1200 · MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 

TELEPHONE: 305-379-3686 · FACSIMILE: 305-379-3690

34. In Moses v. Home Depot, the plaintiff alleged personal injury after a box 

fell on him while at a Home Depot Store. See Moses v. Home Depot U.S.A., No. 13-

60546-CIV-ROSENBAUM, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191441, at *4 (S.D. Fla. June 19,

2013). Prior to filing his complaint, the Plaintiff sent a demand letter and enclosed

medical reports “and a table showing the medical expenses already incurred in the 

amount of $14,270.90.” Id. The court denied the plaintiff’s motion to remand finding 

“the damages claim found in the pre-suit demand letters, combined with the severity 

of [the] Plaintiff’s injuries, his doctors’ opinions that [the] Plaintiff will require 

surgery” show that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum. 

Id at *9-*10. In Eichhorn v. Home Depot USA, Inc., No. 07-61250-CIV, 2007 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 70541 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 24, 2007) the court found that the amount in 

controversy was over $75,000.00 when plaintiff’s complaint alleged “serious and 

permanent injuries resulting in pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental 

anguish, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization, medical 

and nursing care and treatment, and aggravation of a pre-existing condition.

35. Here, Plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of damages for pain and

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

nursing care and treatment, loss of earnings, loss of ability to earn money, and 

aggravation of a previously existing condition, among other damages he claims are 

permanent and ongoing. See Ex. “A” at ¶ 15.

36. Further, the Plaintiff’s responses to Target’s Discovery along with the

Plaintiff’s medical bills to date and most importantly the significant future care

Plaintiff’s doctor opines he will need over this lifetime sufficiently and conclusively

Case 1:22-cv-22993-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/19/2022 Page 9 of 12
10

150 SOUTHEAST SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 1200 · MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 

TELEPHONE: 305-379-3686 · FACSIMILE: 305-379-3690

establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy

exceeds the requisite $75,000.00 jurisdictional minimum for this Court’s jurisdiction

rendering removal proper.

37. Accordingly, the evidence provided herein clearly demonstrates 

Plaintiff’s claimed damages in the instant case far exceed $75,000.00. Accordingly, 

Target has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy 

exceeds the jurisdictional minimum, rendering removal proper.

CONCLUSION

Because the parties are citizens of different states, and because the amount in 

controversy exceeds Seventy-Five Thousand ($75,000.00) dollars exclusive of interest, 

fees, and costs, this action is removable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441 and 

1446(b)(3). Upon filing of this Notice of Removal, Target will promptly give written 

notice to Plaintiff and to the Clerk of the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial 

Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida.

WHEREFORE, Defendant, TARGET CORPORATION, respectfully requests 

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

the aforesaid action, Case No. 2022-005030-CA (01), be removed to the United States 

District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, and that this 

Court assume full and complete jurisdiction thereof and issue all necessary orders 

and grant all general equitable relief to which Target is entitled. 

Dated September 19, 2022

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Schuyler A. Smith

Case 1:22-cv-22993-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/19/2022 Page 10 of 12
11

150 SOUTHEAST SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 1200 · MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 

TELEPHONE: 305-379-3686 · FACSIMILE: 305-379-3690

Schuyler A. Smith, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 70710

ssmith@hamiltonmillerlaw.com

Andres A. Pino, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 119338

apino@hamiltonmillerlaw.com

HAMILTON, MILLER & BIRTHISEL, LLP

150 Southeast Second Avenue, Suite 1200 

Miami, Florida 33131

Telephone: (305) 379-3686

Facsimile: (305) 379-3690

Attorneys for Target Corporation

Case 1:22-cv-22993-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/19/2022 Page 11 of 12
12

150 SOUTHEAST SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 1200 · MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 

TELEPHONE: 305-379-3686 · FACSIMILE: 305-379-3690

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 19, 2022, I electronically filed the 

foregoing document with the Clerk of the court using the E-Filing Portal. I also certify 

that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record or pro se 

parties identified on the attached Service List by electronic mail. 

/s/ Schuyler A. Smith

Schuyler A. Smith, Esq.

SERVICE LIST

Andrew J. Inserra, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 110369

Inserra Law Firm, LLC

2131 Hollywood Blvd, Suite 208

Hollywood, Florida 33020

Telephone: (754) 777-9911

Facsimile: (754) 210-6195

andrew@inserralawfirm.com 

info@inserralawfirm.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 1:22-cv-22993-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/19/2022 Page 12 of 12