1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BALTAZAR FAVILA QUINTANA, Case No.: 3:24-cv-00329-RBM-LR

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION 13 v. TO REMAND 14 COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, and DOES 1 through 15 100, inclusive, 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulation to limit plaintiff, Baltazar Favila 20 Quintana’s damages and proposed order (“Stipulation”). (Doc. 6.) In the Stipulation, the 21 parties stipulate “Plaintiff acknowledges that he claims damages in excess of $75,000.00.” 22 (Id. ¶ 3.) However, the parties then stipulate “Plaintiff hereby agrees and stipulates that 23 his damages, resulting from the alleged incident that occurred on defendant’s premises on 24 or about May 10, 2022 that are the subject of the within action (formerly Imperial County 25 Superior Court Case No.: ECU003212) (hereinafter “the litigation”) are hereby limited and 26 capped at $74,999.99.” (Id. ¶ 5.) The parties stipulate “Plaintiff hereby agrees and 27 stipulates that if his damages should exceed $74,999.99, he hereby waives the right to claim 28 such damages as a result of the litigation.” (Id. ¶ 6.) The parties stipulate “Plaintiff hereby 1 agrees and stipulates that his recovery of damages in the litigation, including but not limited 2 to economic damages and non-economic damages, are hereby capped at $74,999.99.” (Id. 3 ¶ 7.) The parties further stipulate “Plaintiff hereby agrees and stipulates that if his recovery 4 of damages in the litigation should exceed $74,999.99, either by verdict or other means, he 5 hereby waives the right to recover any such damages in excess of $74,999.99.” (Id. ¶ 8.) 6 The parties then stipulate that “because the amount in controversy in this matter does 7 not exceed $75,000, subject matter jurisdiction is lacking.” (Id. ¶ 10.) The parties request 8 this case “be remanded to the Imperial County Superior Court, Case No.: ECU003212” 9 and stipulate and agree to remand. (Id. ¶¶ 11–12.) 10 The parties jointly stipulate that the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000 11 and request to remand this case to the Imperial County Superior Court. See Noriega v. 12 Volvo Cars of N. Am., Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-01671-BEN-MSB,

, at *2 13 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2021) (granting joint stipulation to remand where parties agree amount 14 in controversy does not exceed $75,000 and consent to remand); Thompson v. Target 15 Corp., Case No. CV 16-0839-JGB (MRWx),

, at *2–5 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 16 6, 2017) (explaining no binding authority prevents the parties’ from stipulating to remand). 17 Accordingly, based on the parties’ Stipulation, the Court REMANDS this case to 18 the Imperial County Superior Court. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 DATE: March 25, 2024 21 _____________________________________ HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28