{"id":500,"date":"2026-01-21T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-21T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=500"},"modified":"2026-01-21T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-21T12:00:00","slug":"santana-amazon-cd-cal-discrimination-removal-post-removal-stipulation-cap-damages","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=500","title":{"rendered":"Santana v. Amazon \u2014 C.D. Cal. Holds Post-Removal Stipulation to Cap Damages Cannot Defeat Federal Jurisdiction"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Agustin Santana III v. Amazon.com Services LLC<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Central District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-21<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
5:25-cv-03053-JGB<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Removal, sexual-orientation discrimination, FEHA, amount in controversy, post-removal stipulation, mitigation, attorneys\u2019 fees<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

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 \u00a7 12940(a), retaliation under \u00a7 12940(h), and wrongful termination in violation of public policy.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The court denied remand. Two principles drove the analysis.<\/p>\n

First, the amount in controversy is determined from the allegations in the state-court complaint at the time of removal. Santana\u2019s 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\u2019 fees. Under the long-established rule from St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co. (1938), the plaintiff\u2019s good-faith demand controls unless it is \u201ca legal certainty\u201d the case is for less.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Amazon\u2019s estimates supported jurisdiction even with conservative assumptions. Lost wages alone totaled roughly $60,420 (California minimum wage \u00d7 40 hours per week \u00d7 93 weeks between termination and removal), leaving only about $15,000 needed in attorneys\u2019 fees and non-economic damages \u2014 a figure easily met by reasonable estimates of FEHA claims, even at the low end of Amazon\u2019s range. The court also pointed out the internal logic of Santana\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

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 \u2014 which the law does not permit.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n