Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Agustin Santana III worked at an Amazon facility in Bloomington, California from late 2022 to early 2024. He alleged that on January 19, 2024, his boyfriend (also an Amazon employee) greeted him with a brief, consensual cheek kiss at work; that an HR representative questioned him about possible sexual harassment; and that he was terminated as a result. He sued Amazon in San Bernardino County Superior Court, asserting three California claims: discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation under California Government Code § 12940(a), retaliation under § 12940(h), and wrongful termination in violation of public policy.
Amazon removed under diversity jurisdiction. Santana moved to remand, attaching a post-suit declaration calculating his economic damages at $5,500 (after mitigation through new employment) and stipulating that he would not seek or accept an award above $75,000.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied remand. Two principles drove the analysis.
First, the amount in controversy is determined from the allegations in the state-court complaint at the time of removal. Santana’s complaint did not include any cap on damages or any limitation tied to mitigation; it simply demanded general and special damages, emotional-distress damages, punitive damages, civil penalties, and attorneys’ fees. Under the long-established rule from St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co. (1938), the plaintiff’s good-faith demand controls unless it is “a legal certainty” the case is for less.
Second, mitigation is an affirmative defense and does not reduce the amount in controversy. The Ninth Circuit (Greene v. Harley-Davidson) has expressly held that defenses bearing on the size of the eventual recovery do not affect the jurisdictional inquiry; otherwise courts would have to decide the merits of every potential defense at the removal stage.
Amazon’s estimates supported jurisdiction even with conservative assumptions. Lost wages alone totaled roughly $60,420 (California minimum wage × 40 hours per week × 93 weeks between termination and removal), leaving only about $15,000 needed in attorneys’ fees and non-economic damages — a figure easily met by reasonable estimates of FEHA claims, even at the low end of Amazon’s range. The court also pointed out the internal logic of Santana’s own stipulation: by promising not to take more than $75,000 while estimating his economic loss at only $5,500, he was implicitly acknowledging that nearly $70,000 of additional value was in play.
Finally, post-removal stipulations cannot defeat federal jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit (Williams v. Costco) has held that the propriety of removal is judged solely by the pleadings as they stood when the case was removed. A later promise to limit damages is functionally an attempt to amend the complaint to escape federal court — which the law does not permit.
Key Takeaways
- The amount in controversy is determined as of the time of removal — based on the state-court complaint, not later stipulations or declarations.
- Plaintiffs who pleaded open-ended damages cannot escape federal court by signing a post-removal cap stipulating they will not accept more than $75,000.
- Mitigation is an affirmative defense and does not reduce the amount in controversy.
- Defendants can satisfy the amount in controversy through lost-wages calculations (minimum wage × hours per week × weeks between termination and removal) plus reasonable estimates of emotional-distress, punitive, and attorneys’ fees damages.
- A plaintiff’s own willingness to stipulate to a $75,000 cap effectively concedes that more than the small lost-wages figure is at stake.
- Doubts about removability are resolved in favor of remand, but courts will enforce the time-of-removal rule strictly when the complaint plainly contemplates substantial damages.
Why It Matters
This decision is a useful reminder that the time-of-removal snapshot rule has real teeth. California employment-discrimination plaintiffs who file in state court but then realize their case is heading to federal court cannot easily reverse course by promising to limit damages.
For employer-defendants, the order endorses a removal calculation based on a straightforward lost-wages multiplier plus modest non-economic damages and fees. For employee-plaintiffs, the practical message is to plead damages with care from the start: if the goal is a state-court forum, the complaint itself must reflect a damages cap or a clear limitation tied to specific recovery components, not a vague open-ended demand.