is an exception to or a necessary element of establishing a district court’s original jurisdiction under CAFA. Jurisdictional facts “such as the amount in controversy” are evaluated on the basis of the pleadings “viewed at the time when [the] defendant files the notice of removal.” Galeno, 472 F.3d at 56-57; Caterpillar, 519 U.S. at 73, 117 S.Ct. 467. Here, at the time of removal, Okoli’s complaint stated that the size of the proposed plaintiff class was “hundreds of persons.” J.A. 18. Indeed, even Okoli’s amended complaint did not change the proposed class size. A plaintiff “cannot seek to deprive a federal court of jurisdiction” by changing its pleadings “once the jurisdictional threshold has been satisfied.” Yong Qin Luo v. Mikel, 625 F.3d 772, 776 (2d Cir.2010) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). Thus, regardless of whether BNB’s notice of
holding that it is a wellestablished rule that a district courts subject matter jurisdiction once established is unaffected by postremoval reductions in the amount in controversy internal citations omitted holding that postremoval affidavits can be considered in determining the amount in controversy if jurisdiction is ambiguous at the time of removal holding that standing is implicit in trial courts subject matter jurisdiction to consider case holding minimum amount in controversy required for district court jurisdiction is 20001 holding that the burden is on defendant as the party invoking removal jurisdiction to establish the existence of a sufficient amount in controversy