to file stipulation until after removal). “Such manipulation is surely characterized as bad faith.” See De Aguilar, 47 F.3d at 1410. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the “Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge” (EOF No. 31) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Amalia and Carlos Gates’ “Opposed Motion to Remand and Brief in Support” (ECF No. 14) is DENIED. 1 . $50,000 was the previous jurisdictional amount in controversy required to establish diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), Section 1332 was later amended to require that the amount in controversy exceed $75,000. 2 . Plaintiffs also rely on the following cases, which are distinguishable from the instant case: Ware v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 116 F.Supp.3d 737, 741 (N.D. Tex. 2015) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added); Washington-Thomas v. Dial
holding that the filing of an amended petition in the same cause in which a final judgment had already been entered was like an original petition sufficient to invoke the trial courts jurisdiction holding that a petitioner may amend a habeas petition rather than filing a second or successive petition when the first petition has not yet reached a final decision holding that a plaintiff can defeat removal by filing a binding affidavit with her complaint stating that she will not seek or accept more than the jurisdictional amount holding that when a plaintiff misnames a defendant limitations is tolled and a subsequent amendment of the petition relates back to the date of the original petition holding that the statements in the plaintiffs  original petition along with the sworn declaration attached to her original petition stating that  she would not accept a judgment or recovery greater than 74000 were sufficient to bind the plaintiff to a recovery of no more than 74000