the value of the claims, relying in large part on the allocation of the burden of proof in jurisdictional matters. Id.; see Warren v. Sessoms & Rogers, P.A., 676 F.3d 365, 371 (4th Cir.2012) (declining to weigh the evidence and determine whether the value of the plaintiffs actual damages exceeded the value of the offer of judgment only because (a) the trial court had failed to conduct any jurisdictional fact finding and (b) the court of appeals was not empowered to make factual findings in the first instance). When a plaintiff makes a specific demand in the complaint for damages, or otherwise specifies the value of his or her claims, an offer of judgment in excess of that value will be held to moot the case. Warren, 676 F.3d at 372. Such specification may c d 180, 189-90 (3d Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>); McCann, 458 F.3d at 286 (“a presumption in a
holding plaintiff to his burden of persuasion on appeal of summary judgment holding that a presumption in a civil case is burst upon the introduction of a minimal quantum of evidence leaving behind only the evidence and inferences to be judged according to the appropriate allocation of the burden of persuasion recognizing that the burden of persuasion for a showing of prejudice was on the defendant holding that the burden of persuasion by a preponderance of the evidence remains with the movant holding that the plaintiffs have the burden of proof and persuasion as to the existence of standing