Case 0:23-cv-61864-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2023 Page 1 of 6
`
`112673-7
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`
`CASE NO. _____________
`
`
`
`
`SUZETTE RODRIGUEZ,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION,
`
` Defendant.
`_____________________________________/
`
`DEFENDANT, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`
`Defendant, Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Costco” or “Defendant”), by and through its
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`undersigned counsel, hereby files its Notice of Removal to this Court of the above-styled action
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sections 1441(b) and 1446(a), and 28 U.S.C. section 1332, and as support
`
`thereof, Costco states as follows:
`
`Factual Background
`
`1.
`
`Costco is the sole defendant in Plaintiff’s civil negligence action, which was filed
`
`on March 21, 2023, in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, Case
`
`No. CACE-23-008639. (See Pl.’s Compl., attached hereto as Exhibit “A”).
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff alleges personal injuries following two purported slip and falls on a
`
`slippery substance at a Costco Warehouse located at 1890 S. University Drive, Davie, FL 33321
`
`on or about May 31, 2022 and September 16, 2022 (hereinafter “subject incidents”). (See id. at ¶¶
`
`1, 6).
`
`

`

`Case 0:23-cv-61864-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2023 Page 2 of 6
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff served the Complaint on Costco’s Registered Agent on July 3, 2023. (See
`
`CASE NO. CACE23008639
`
`Return of Service, attached hereto as Exhibit “B”). At the time of service, there was no basis on
`
`the face of the Complaint to remove this action, as the Complaint merely alleged the damages at
`
`issue exceed fifty thousand dollars. (See Compl. ¶ 1).
`
`4.
`
`However, Costco’s Notice of Removal is timely filed within thirty (30) days after
`
`receipt by Costco of Plaintiff’s written discovery responses setting forth claimed damages in
`
`excess of the jurisdictional threshold for removal. (See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b); see also Def.’s Req.
`
`for Admis. ¶¶ 1–3, dated Aug. 2, 2023, attached hereto as Exhibit “C”; Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Req.
`
`for Admis. ¶¶ 1, 4–8, Sept. 1, 2023, attached hereto as Exhibit “D”). No further state court
`
`proceedings have taken place as of the date of this Notice of Removal.
`
`5.
`
`This is a civil action over which this Court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. section 1332. A defendant may remove a state court proceeding to federal court if: (1) the
`
`amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interests and costs, and (2) the action is
`
`between a citizen of a State and a citizen of a foreign state. Both prongs are met here.
`
`The Parties are Completely Diverse
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff resides in Broward County, Florida. (See Pl.’s Compl. at ¶ 2; Pl.’s Resp.
`
`to Def.’s Req. for Admis. at ¶ 1). To be a “citizen” of a state within the meaning of the diversity
`
`provision, a natural person must be both a citizen of the United States and a domiciliary of a state.
`
`Jones v. Law Firm of Hill & Ponton, 141 F. Supp. 2d 1349, 1355 (M.D. Fla. 2001). In determining
`
`domicile, a court should consider both positive evidence and presumptions. Id. One such
`
`presumption is that the state in which a person resides at any given time is also that person’s
`
`domicile. Id. Therefore, Plaintiff’s citizenship in the State of Florida is assumed for diversity
`
`2
`
`
`

`

`Case 0:23-cv-61864-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2023 Page 3 of 6
`
`
`purposes. See McCormick v. Aderholt, 293 F.3d 1254, 1257 (11th Cir. 2002) (explaining that
`
`CASE NO. CACE23008639
`
`“[c]itizenship is the equivalent to domicile for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.”).
`
`7.
`
`Costco is a foreign corporation established under the laws of Washington with its
`
`principal place of business in the state of Washington (See generally Fla. Division of Corporations
`
`Detail by Entity Name). Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1332(c)(1), Costco is, and was
`
`at the time of the commencement of this action, a citizen of the State of Washington.
`
`8.
`
`Therefore, complete diversity of citizenship exists between Plaintiff and Costco.
`
`The Amount-in-Controversy Requirement is Satisfied
`
`9.
`
`As to the amount-in-controversy requirement, Plaintiff’s Complaint merely alleged
`
`damages in excess of the $50,000.00 requirement to satisfy the jurisdictional bar to Florida’s
`
`Circuit courts. (See Pl.’s Compl. at ¶ 1).
`
`10.
`
`However, Plaintiff’s recent Response to Defendant’s Requests for Admission,
`
`dated September 1, 2023, demonstrates Plaintiff is now seeking in excess of $75,000.00 in
`
`damages in this lawsuit.1 (Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Req. for Admis. at ¶ 2).
`
`11.
`
`Based on the representations made by Plaintiff concerning the total figures at issue,
`
`the amount-in-controversy requirement is established. See Wilson v. Gen. Motors Corp., 888 F.2d
`
`779, 782 (11th Cir. 1989) (“When Wilson responded to GMC’s Requests for Admission on
`
`January 23, 1986, she admitted that none of the fictitious defendants existed. By doing so, she
`
`triggered the 30 day period. The response was the ‘paper from which it [was] first ascertained that
`
`
`1 “Courts have held that responses to request for admissions, settlement offers, and other
`correspondence between parties can be ‘other paper’ under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).” Wilson v. Target
`Corp., Case No. 10–CV–80451, 2010 WL 3632794, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 14, 2010) (citing Lowery
`v. Ala. Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1212 n.62 (11th Cir. 2007) (discussion of the judicial
`development of the term “other paper”).
`
`3
`
`
`

`

`Case 0:23-cv-61864-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2023 Page 4 of 6
`
`
`the case [was] one which is or has become removable’.” (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b))); Deabreu
`
`CASE NO. CACE23008639
`
`v. Higbee Co., No. 8:17-CV-2378-T-MAP, 2018 WL 3860227 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 6, 2018) (holding
`
`that a defendant’s reliance on plaintiff’s response to its Request for Admissions is appropriate and
`
`sufficient to meet the amount in controversy jurisdictional requirement). Cf. Lambertson v. Go
`
`Fit, LLC, 918 F. Supp. 2d 1283, 1286 (S.D. Fla. 2013) (“This Court finds that the proper triggering
`
`document in this case was Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s request for admissions.”).
`
`12.
`
`Consequently, this Court has original jurisdiction over the aforementioned matter
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1332(a), as this action involves: (1) citizens of different states, and
`
`(2) an amount in controversy in excess of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00), exclusive of
`
`interest and costs.
`
`The Procedural Requirements for Removal Have Been Completed by Costco
`
`Simultaneous to the filing of this Notice of Removal, Costco has given written
`
`13.
`
`notice of the filing of this Notice to Plaintiff, as required by 28 U.S.C. section 1446(d).
`
`14.
`
`A copy of this Notice has likewise been filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court in
`
`and for Broward County, Florida (attached hereto as Exhibit “E”), in compliance with the
`
`requirements of 28 U.S.C. section 1446(d).
`
`15.
`
`True and correct copies of all documents that were filed in the state action are
`
`attached hereto as Composite Exhibit “F”.
`
`16.
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1441(a), venue is proper in the Southern District of
`
`Florida as the state action was filed and pending within the jurisdictional boundaries of this
`
`District.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`

`

`Case 0:23-cv-61864-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2023 Page 5 of 6
`
`
`Dated: September 29th, 2023
`
`CASE NO. CACE23008639
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Jason A. Glusman
`______________________________
`Jason A. Glusman, Esquire
`Florida Bar Number: 0419400
`WICKER SMITH O’HARA
`McCOY & FORD, P.A.
`515 E. Las Olas Boulevard
`SunTrust Center, Suite 1400
`Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
`Telephone:
`(954) 847-4800
`Facsimile:
`(954) 760-9353
`Attorneys for Defendant
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was filed with the Clerk
`of Court using the CM/ECF system on September 29th, 2023, and the foregoing document is being
`served this day on all counsel or parties of record on the Service List below, either via transmission
`of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those
`counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive Notices of Electronic Filing.
`
`
`/s/ Jason A. Glusman
`______________________________
`Jason A. Glusman, Esquire
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`

`

`Case 0:23-cv-61864-RS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2023 Page 6 of 6
`
`CASE NO. CACE23008639
`
`SERVICE LIST
`
`
`
`
`Joseph C. Madalon, Esquire
`Madalon Law
`100 North Federal Hwy.
`Suite CU-5, 4th Floor
`Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
`
`Atty to Mohammad Arim Farooque
`Telephone:
`(954) 923-0072
`Facsimile:
`(954) 923-0074
`pleadings@madalonlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`