pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000 “exclusive of interest and costs.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). To the extent that any of the 200 hours cited by Scott were expended in prosecuting the instant matter, they would constitute costs, not damages. See Gardynski-Leschuck v. Ford Motor Co., 142 F.3d 955, 958 (7th Cir.1998) (“jurisdiction depends on the state of affairs when the case begins; what happens later is irrelevant”). In fact, Scott has not even alleged what amount he might be entitled to s are vague generalizations that do not rise to the level of competent proof required to meet the statutory amount in controversy requirement necessary to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); see, e.g., Ganjavi, 2007 WL 2298375, at *4 (<HOLDING>). Next, Scott contends that he may rely on
holding that the plaintiff had failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish constructive notice because the plaintiff did not present any evidence to establish that the oil was on the floor for any length of time holding that absent any actual evidence of injury the plaintiffs allegations were too vague to establish the jurisdictional floor for damages holding vague allegations of bias insufficient holding that plaintiffs consequential damages were too speculative because no evidence connected damages to defendants breach of contract holding that allegations of reputational harm emotional harm emotional suffering and humiliation in addition to substantial legal expenses were too vague to establish the jurisdictional floor for damages absent any actual evidence of injury