citizen, brought suit in federal court against Brown, a Connecticut citizen, alleging assault and battery. In response to Brown’s interrogatory asking Lar-kin to state the total amount of damages that he sought, Larkin stated $50,000, which, as the court of appeals noted, was “a penny shy” of the then-existing amount-in-eontro-versy requirement. 41 F.3d at 389. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision granting Brown’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdictional requirement, observing that “[i]n determining the amount in controversy pursuant to a motion to dismiss, answers to interrogatories serve as the equivalent of affidavits to either support or defeat diversity jurisdiction.” Id. (emphasis added); see also Hardemon v. City of Boston, 144 F.3d 24, 27 (1st Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). As defendant itself acknowledges, Missouri
holding that the district court erred in not determining whether the amount in controversy necessary to create diversity jurisdiction was met at the time of removal holding that when a defendant raises an amountincontroversy challenge to diversity jurisdiction the plaintiff can meet his burden of proving jurisdiction by amending the pleading or by submitting affidavits which sufficiently substantiate the alleged amount in controversy holding that district court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a coplaintiff claim that fails to meet the amount in controversy requirement holding that postremoval affidavits can be considered in determining the amount in controversy if jurisdiction is ambiguous at the time of removal holding that the burden is on defendant as the party invoking removal jurisdiction to establish the existence of a sufficient amount in controversy