affect sales, how consumers and competitors would respond, how it would alter the price of its product, or how these losses would translate into lost profits. With so little information, the Court has no basis to assess Monster’s expected losses. Monster’s general assertions are thus too speculative to establish the cost of injunctive relief, and the Court will hence not consider any such costs. D. Restitution Zuckman also seeks restitution on behalf of himself and the general public for their purchases of Monster Energy drinks. See Compl. at 11; Pl.’s Mot. for Remand at 13. Restitution claims, like claims for statutory damages or attorney fees, generally cannot be aggregated for purposes of satisfying the amount-in-controversy requirement. See Snyder, 394 U.S. at 335, 89 S.Ct. 1053 (<HOLDING>); see also Georgiades v. Martin-Trigona, 729
holding that because they are distinct and separate it had broad discretion  under rule 21 to sever the plaintiffs claims against riverboat from what remained of the plaintiffs claims against showboat holding unanimity requirement not violated when charge stated two separate counts with two separate and distinct offenses in each case holding that the separate and distinct claims of two or more plaintiffs cannot be aggregated to establish jurisdiction holding that the evidence supported two separate convictions and punishments for two attempted robberies of two different victims who suffered separate and distinct harms holding that if a single primary right should be invaded by two distinct and separate legal wrongs two causes of action would result