010-9414-4176/1/AMERICAS 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

FORT PIERCE DIVISION 

CASE NO. _________________ 

ALICE L. NASH, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

DEPUY SYNTHES PRODUCTS, INC., ) 

) 

Defendant. ) 

DEFENDANT DEPUY SYNTHES PRODUCTS, INC.’S 

NOTICE OF REMOVAL 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446, Defendant DePuy Synthes Products, Inc. 

(“DePuy Synthes” or “Removing Defendant”), hereby removes the action styled as Alice L. Nash v. 

DePuy Synthes Products, Inc., Cause No. 2022CA001134, filed in the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit of the 

State of Florida, St. Lucie County (the “State Court Action”), to the United States District Court for 

the Southern District of Florida, Fort Pierce Division. 

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida has original subject 

matter jurisdiction with respect to this civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) and 1441, because 

there is complete diversity betwween Plaintiff and DePuy Synthes, and the amount in controversy 

exceeds $75,000 exclusive of interests and costs. In support of removal, DePuy Synthes further states 

as follows: 

I. THE STATE COURT ACTION 

1. Plaintiff Alice L. Nash filed the State Court Action on June 24, 2022. The Complaint 

named DePuy Synthes as the sole defendant. A copy of the Complaint in the State Court Action is 

attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 

2. DePuy Synthes was served with Plaintiff’s Complaint on July 1, 2022. 

Case 2:22-cv-14274-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2022 Page 1 of 7
2 

010-9414-4176/1/AMERICAS 

3. DePuy Synthes has not yet appeared or pled in the State Court Action. 

4. As to DePuy Synthes, Plaintiff asserts negligence and strict liability claims arising from 

the alleged use of the “DePuy Synthes Corail, stem size 10 with a 43 mm bipolar head, hip implant 

system” during Plaintiff’s left hip hemiarthroplasty on February 4, 2022 (See Compl. at ¶¶ 6 and 10). 

5. Plaintiff alleges that the device did not function as it was designed and failed ten weeks 

after Plaintiff’s initial surgery, which necessitated a left hip arthroplasty surgery (See Compl. at ¶¶ 10–

14). Plaintiff seeks damages under Florida’s common law for her bodily injury and resulting pain and 

suffering, disability, scarring, disfigurement, mental anguish, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, 

expense of hopitalization, and expense of medical care and treatment for losses that are either 

permanent or continuing, and that Plaintiff will continue to suffer such losses in the future (See Compl. 

at ¶¶ 23 and 28). 

II. REMOVAL IS PROPER BECAUSE THIS COURT HAS ORIGINAL SUBJECT 

MATTER JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 

6. This Court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) because this is a 

civil action between citizens of different states in which the amount in controversy exceeds 

$75,000exclusive of interest and costs. 

A. The Amount in Controversy Requirement is Satisfied.

7. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(B), removal is proper if the Court finds, by a 

preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 exclusive of interest 

and costs. 

8. Where, as here, the jurisdictional amount is not alleged, it may nonetheless be 

determined when “facially apparent” from the complaint. Williams v. Best Buy Co., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319 

(11th Cir. 2001) (holding that “removal from state court is proper if it is facially apparent from the 

complaint that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional requirement.”). If not apparent 

from the complaint, a court may consider the notice of removal and post-removal evidence to 

Case 2:22-cv-14274-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2022 Page 2 of 7
3 

010-9414-4176/1/AMERICAS 

determine the amount in controversy. See id.; see also Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744, 768 

(11th Cir. 2010) (holding that “the evidence the defendant may use to establish the jurisdictional facts 

is not limited to that which it received from the plaintiff or the court.”). Moreover, courts have 

recognized that product liability claims involving medical devices meet the $75,000 jurisdictional 

requirement. See, e.g., Thomas v. Alcon Labs., No. 1:12-CV-3678-ODE, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189783, 

at *3 n.2 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 29, 2013) (finding that plaintiff’s medical device personal injury complaint 

seeking damages for “past and future medical expenses, physical and mental pain and suffering, 

permanent disability and loss of enjoyment of life, and future lost wages and diminished earning 

capacity” clearly exceeded the amount in controversy requirement); Milter v. Wright Med. Grp., Inc., No. 

11-CV-11353, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105692, at *9-10 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 19, 2011) (in denying the 

plaintiff’s motion to remand, the district court held that the defendant showed that it was “more likely 

than not” that the amount-in-controversy requirement was satisfied based on allegations in the 

complaint asserting a revision surgery, extreme physical and mental pain, and incurred medical 

expenses). 

9. A reasonable reading of the Complaint reveals that Plaintiff is seeking more than 

$75,000 in damages in light of her allegations of “bodily injury and resulting pain and suffering, 

disability, scarring, disfigurement, mental anguish, loss of capacity for enjoyment of life, expense of 

hospitalization and expense of medical care and treatment” and that the losses are permanent and 

continuing into the future (See Compl. at ¶¶ 23 and 28); Estevez-Gonzalez v. Kraft, Inc., 606 F. Supp. 127, 

129 (S.D. Fla. 1985) (plaintiff’s complaint disclosed that the amount in controversy exceeded the 

jurisdictional amount where it contained no specification of damages and alleged physical and mental 

pain, physical handicap, impairment of working ability, injuries of a permanent and continuing nature, 

and medical expenses); Roe v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 613 F.3d 1058, 1061-62 (11th Cir. 2010) (“Eleventh 

Circuit precedent permits district courts to make ‘reasonable deductions, reasonable inferences, or 

Case 2:22-cv-14274-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2022 Page 3 of 7
4 

010-9414-4176/1/AMERICAS 

other reasonable extrapolations’ from the pleadings to determine whether it is facially apparent that a 

case is removable.”) (quoting Pretka, 608 F.3d at 754). 

10. Moreover, while the Complaint fails to state a particular jurisdictional amount, Plaintiff 

asserted in the Civil Cover Sheet in State Court Action that the “amount of the claim” is “over 

$100,000.00.” Exhibit 2 at p. 2 & 5. 

11. Although the Removing Defendant does not concede or admit that Plaintiff has 

suffered any damages or that Removing Defendant is liable for any claimed damages, Plaintiff’s 

allegations demonstrate that the amount in controversy in this matter exceeds $75,000, exclusive of 

interest and costs, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 

B. Complete Diversity of Citizenship Exists Between Plaintiffs and Defendants.

12. Removal is proper because complete diversity exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 

13. Plaintiff alleges in her Complaint that she is a resident of the State of Florida, 

specifically St. Lucie County, Florida (See Compl. at ¶ 2). Upon information and belief, Plaintiff was 

and continues to be a citizen of Florida for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction. See Pretka v. Kolter 

City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744, 757-60 (11th Cir. 2010). 

14. Removing Defendant, DePuy Synthes, is a corporation. A corporation is a citizen of 

its state of incorporation and state of its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(c)(1). 

15. Defendant DePuy Synthes Products, Inc. was at the time of filing the Complaint, and 

is now, incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business in 

Raynham, Massachusetts (See Compl. at ¶ 3). Thus, DePuy Synthes is a citizen of Massachusetts and 

Delaware. 

16. Accordingly, there is complete diversity between Plaintiff and the Removing 

Defendant. See generally Sweet Pea Marine, Ltd. v. APJ Marine, Inc., 411 F.3d 1242, 1248 n.2 (11th Cir. 

2005) (party establishes diversity by showing that parties are not citizens of the same state). 

Case 2:22-cv-14274-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2022 Page 4 of 7
5 

010-9414-4176/1/AMERICAS 

III. REMOVING DEFENDANT HAS SATISFIED THE OTHER PROCEDURAL 

AND VENUE REQUIREMENTS FOR REMOVAL. 

17. Removal of the State Court Action is timely filed under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) because 

this Notice of Removal is filed within 30 days of July 1, 2022—the date when Plaintiff severed DePuy 

Synthes with her Complaint. 

18. The Nineteenth Judicial Circuit is located within the Southern District of Florida, Fort 

Pierce Division. Venue is thus proper under 28 U.S.C. § 89(b) because this is the “district and division 

embracing the place where such action is pending.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 

19. As required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), Removing Defendant attaches a copy of all 

process, pleadings, and orders served upon it, including summonses and petitions, as Exhibit 2.

20. As required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), a copy of this Notice of Removal is being served 

upon counsel for Plaintiff and a copy is being filed with the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for St. 

Lucie County. 

21. No previous application has been made for the relief requested herein. 

22. By removing this action to this Court, Removing Defendant neither admits that they 

are the proper corporate entities, nor waive any defenses, objections, or motions available under state 

or federal law. Removing Defendant expressly reserves the right to move for dismissal of some or all 

of Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and/or seek dismissal 

on grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, insufficient service of process, or under 

the doctrine of forum non conveniens. 

Case 2:22-cv-14274-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2022 Page 5 of 7
6 

010-9414-4176/1/AMERICAS 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, DePuy Synthes Products, Inc., respectfully removes this action 

from the Nineteenth Judicial District of Florida, in and for St. Lucie County, bearing Case No. 

2022CA001134, to this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1446. 

DATED: July 29, 2022. Respectfully submitted 

/s/ Andrew R. Kruppa 

Andrew R. Kruppa 

Florida Bar Number 63958 

SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP 

200 South Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 3400 

Miami, Florida 33131 

Telephone: (305) 577-7000 

Facsimile: (305) 577-7001 

Email: andrew.kruppa@squirepb.com 

Counsel for Defendant DePuy Synthes 

Products, Inc. 

Case 2:22-cv-14274-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2022 Page 6 of 7
7 

010-9414-4176/1/AMERICAS 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 29th day of July 2022, I electronically filed a true and correct 

copy of the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system. I further 

certify that the foregoing document was provided to the following counsel of record via electronic 

transmission: 

Alaina Fotiu-Wojtowicz, Esq. 

Robert S. Visca, Esq. 

BRODSKY FOTIU-WOJTOWICZ, PLLC 

200 SE 1st Street, Suite 400 

Miami, Florida 33131 

Telephone: 305-503-5054 

Facsimile: 786-749-7644 

alaina@bfwlegal.com 

robert@bfwlegal.com 

/s/ Andrew R. Kruppa 

Andrew R. Kruppa 

Case 2:22-cv-14274-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2022 Page 7 of 7