jurisdiction] has not been met: (1) the complaint did not specify an amount of damages, and it was not otherwise facially apparent that the damages sought or incurred were likely above [$75,000.00]; (2) the defendants offered only a conelusory statement in their notice of removal that was not based on direct knowledge about the plaintiffs claims; and (3) the plaintiffs timely contested with a sworn, unrebutted affidavit indicating that the requisite amount in controversy was not present.”) (emphasis added). The presence of a binding affidavit submitted by the plaintiff that limits her ability to recover more than the jurisdictional amount would, if offered, place this case squarely within Dow Química’s holding. See also Gebbia v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 233 F.3d 880, 883 (5th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); In re Norplant Contraceptive Prods. Liability
holding that where a state statute provides for the award of attorneys fees those fees can be considered as part of the amount in controversy for the purpose of determining federal diversity jurisdiction holding that the burden is on defendant as the party invoking removal jurisdiction to establish the existence of a sufficient amount in controversy holding that it is a wellestablished rule that a district courts subject matter jurisdiction once established is unaffected by postremoval reductions in the amount in controversy internal citations omitted 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 postremoval affidavits can be considered in determining the amount in controversy if jurisdiction is ambiguous at the time of removal