disclaimer of plaintiffs' counsel, clarifying any ambiguity in the state court pleadings. ' 9 . In Asociacion Nacional de Pescadores, 988 F.2d at 564 n. 4, in rejecting a similar argument, we observed regarding state pleadings in a remand case: "The statement in their petition that '[d]amages far exceed the minimum jurisdictional limits of this court’ furnishes no basis for that inference. The minimum amount in controversy for Texas district courts, although not entirely clear following recent constitutional and statutory changes ... is certainly no more than $500 .... Moreover, the claims of all plaintiffs are aggregated in determining whether this requirement is met.” (citations omitted). 10 .See KVOS, Inc. v. Associated Press, 299 U.S. 269, 277, 57 S.Ct. 197, 81 L.Ed. 183 (1936) (<HOLDING>); Charles Alan Wright, Law of Federal Courts
holding that a general averment that damages will exceed the jurisdictional requirement is sufficient unless the complaint contains other averments which qualify or detract from it in such measure that when all are considered together it cannot fairly be said that jurisdiction appears on the face of the complaint holding that a pro se complaint  should not be dismissed unless it appears that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts which would entitle him to relief holding that the presence of conclusory terms in a complaint does not insulate it from dismissal when the facts alleged cannot support the charges contained in the complaint 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 recognizing that one of those conditions for a district judge to grant leave to amend the complaint may properly be that claims contained in the original complaint but not included in the amended complaint be considered dismissed with prejudice 