for failure to meet amount-in-controversy requirement). We find that here, there is no dispute as to good faith, subjective or objective. It is undisputed that Coventry alleged the amount in controversy believing its accuracy at the time. Furthermore, there is no evi- denee, and Stop & Shop does not argue otherwise, that Coventry had any reason to believe, at the time of filing, that KCWA’s invoices, upon which the service fee was calculated, were factually incorrect. We find that, objectively viewed, at the time of its filing, Coventry’s claim was worth more than the jurisdictional minimum. This case fits well within the rule that once jurisdiction attaches, it is not ousted by a subsequent change of events. See St. Paul, 303 U.S. at 295, 58 S.Ct. at 593; Klepper, 916 F.2d at 340 (<HOLDING>); 14A Charles A Wright, Arthur R. Miller &
holding that the laterfiled district court action did not divest this court of jurisdiction even though the court below had found that there was no material difference in the operative facts in the two actions and were the same claims for the purposes of  1500 holding that notice of appeal did not divest the district court of jurisdiction at the time it was filed because a motion for reconsideration was pending holding that summary judgment on one claim that reduced amount in controversy below statutory minimum did not divest court of jurisdiction holding that a partys filing of a statutory disclaimer of all interfering claims does not divest the board of jurisdiction to enter judgment against that party holding minimum amount in controversy required for district court jurisdiction is 20001