(E.D.Tenn. Jan. 25, 2008) (Holding that Rogers is abrogated by Powerex Corp. “[bjecause the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000 for this court to have diversity jurisdiction, it therefore follows that a stipulation post-removal requires this court to remand under § 1447(c). This is so even where, as here, defendants initially met their burden of demonstrating that removal was proper because the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.”); Captain v. Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc., No. 10-501, 2010 WL 4875702, at *1 (S.D.Ohio Oct. 7, 2010) (recognizes Rogers was abrogated by Powerex and then remands case after plaintiff stipulates, post-removal, that her total damages will not exceed $75,000); Stratton v. Konecranes, Inc., No. 5:10-CV-66, 2010 WL 2178544, at *3 (E.D.Ky. May 28, 2010) (<HOLDING>); Brown v. Cabell Fin. Corp., No. 5:05-CV-962,
holding that the stipulation included in the plaintiffs petitionthat the maximum amount of damages sought or that would be accepted wpuld not exceed 75000 exclusive of costs and interest bound the plaintiff and was sufficient to defeat diversity jurisdiction recognizing that powerex abrogated rogers but ultimately denied remand since the plaintiffs failed to rebut defendants claim that the amount in controversy more likely than not exceeded 75000 and also refused to stipulate to a lesser amount of damages holding that when plaintiff has proven injury but has failed to prove the amount of damages the plaintiff is only entitled to nominal damages holding that where plaintiff has set forth in the complaint a specific request for damages and attorneys fees that on its face is an amount less than the jurisdictional minimum the defendant must prove to a legal certainty that plaintiffs claim must exceed 75000 holding that because the amount of the debtors obligation to the government exceeded the amount of their income tax refund the refund did not become property of the estate and could not be exempted