17.1     Plaintiffs stipulate that neither the named Plaintiffs nor any individual class member is attempting to seek damages in the amount of $74,999.00 or more, inclusive of each Plaintiff’s and each class member’s recovery for attorney’s fees and punitive damages.

17.2     Put differently, Plaintiffs do not seek and will not seek compensatory damages or injunctive relief, exclusive of interest and costs, that exceeds the sum or value of $74,999.00 for any single Plaintiff or class member, and hereby waive recovery of compensatory damages or injunctive relief in excess of $74,999.00 for any single Plaintiff or class member.

17.3     The value of any individual claim in this action does not exceed $74,999.00, inclusive of punitive damages, interest and costs, for any Plaintiff or any class member.

17.4     Compensatory damages, costs and attorney’s fees cannot, as a matter of law, be aggregated in determining the amount in controversy in a class action case for purposes of federal diversity of jurisdiction. See, e.g., Zahn v. International Paper Co., 414 U.S. 291, 94 S. Ct. 505 (1973) (amount in controversy must be met by each class member); Lindsey v. Alabama Telephone Co. 576 F.2d 593, 594 (5th Cir. 1978) (cannot aggregate class action claims to satisfy amount in controversy requirement for diversity); Kanter et al. v. Warner-Lambert Co., et al., 52 F. Supp. 2nd 1126, 1131 (N.D. Calif. 1999) (case on point with the instant suit, holding that cannot aggregate Plaintiff class members damages or attorney’s fees for diversity, sanctioning these same Defendants for repeated removal when law is clear regarding no basis for removal).

17.5     Punitive damages cannot, as a matter of law, be aggregated in determining the amount in controversy in a class action case for purposes of federal diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. See, e.g., H&D Tire and Automotive-Hardware, Inc. et al. v. Pitney Bowes, Inc. et al., 227 F. 3rd 326, 329 (5th Cir. 2000) (no aggregation of punitive damages in class action suit to establish diversity jurisdiction); Ard v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., 138 F.3d 596, 601 (5th Cir. 1998) (same); Lindsey v. Alabama Telephone Co., 576 F.2d 593, 594 (5th Cir. 1978) (same); Johnson v. Direct T.V., Inc. 63 F. Supp. 2nd 768, 770 (S.D. Tex. 1999) (same).

17.6     Plaintiffs stipulate that they are making no claim, directly or indirectly, arising out of or based upon any federal law or regulation. Plaintiffs’ claims are based solely on Texas law.

17.7     Plaintiffs stipulate that they are not suing to recover for personal injuries. Plaintiffs stipulate that they are not suing for any type of environmental damages associated with, or related to, permethrin, pyrethrin or Defendants’ lice killing products.

17.8     Plaintiffs stipulate that they are making no claim solely arising out of or based solely upon the labeling or packaging of the products at issue here.

17.9     Plaintiffs stipulate that they are making no claim, directly or indirectly, arising out of or based upon a failure to warn.

17.10     Plaintiffs stipulate that they are not seeking any relief that would impose or continue in effect any requirements for packaging and labeling in addition to or different from those required under any federal law, statute or regulation.

17.11     This stipulation is made on behalf of the named plaintiffs and the plaintiff class, except that it is not made on behalf of and will not bind any class member who chooses to opt out of any class certified herein and pursues any separate individual action arising out of the same or similar claims. It likewise is not intended to bind members of the plaintiff class other than the named plaintiffs in the event no class is certified in this action. This stipulation is intended to apply to this civil action whether it proceeds in state court, is removed to and proceeds in federal court, or is removed to federal court and then is remanded to state court.