of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount. The district court must first examine the complaint to determine whether it is “facially apparent” that the claims exceed the jurisdictional amount. If it is not thus apparent, the court may rely on “summary judgment-type” evidence to ascertain the amount in controversy. The Fifth Circuit has also recognized that while plaintiffs are generally “masters of their complaints,” there is a potential for manipulation of federal jurisdiction by allowing a party to plead damages less than the jurisdictional amount “if their pleadings do not limit the actual damages they may ultimately collect.” Allen v. R & H Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326, 1335 n. 14 (5th Cir.1995). Where no am 3d 295, 298 (5th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Here, the plaintiff has claimed that Davis
holding that a jury cannot award damages for medical expenses and lost wages without also awarding damages for pain and suffering where the plaintiff was injured due to the defendants negligence recognizing as separate from pain and suffering recognizing as an element of pain and suffering holding that jurisdictional amount was met where the complaint listed damages including property damages travel expenses emergency ambulance trip sixday hospital stay pain and suffering humiliation and a temporary ability to not do housework holding that claims for pain and suffering are the separate property of a spouse