or other proof submitted, it “appears to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less.” St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co., 303 U.S. at 288-89, 58 S.Ct. at 589-90, 82 L.Ed. at 845. It is then up to the plaintiff to refute the implication that" jurisdiction is lacking. Gibbs v. Buck, 307 U.S. 66, 59 S.Ct. 725, 83 L.Ed. 1111 (1939); Nelson v. Keefer, 451 F.2d 289 (3d Cir.1971); Independent Mach., 991 F.Supp. at 691; Associated Business Tel. Systems Corp. v. Danihels, 829 F.Supp. 707, 709-10 (D.N.J.1993). Where a case has been removed, however, the amount in controversy is generally gleaned from the plaintiffs complaint. Angus v. Shiley, Inc., 989 F.2d 142, 145 (3d Cir.1993); Independent Mach., 991 F.Supp. at 691; see also Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092,1095-97 (11th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Wilson v. Belin, 20 F.3d 644, 651 n. 8 (5th
holding that when plaintiff has proven injury but has failed to prove the amount of damages the plaintiff is only entitled to nominal damages holding that the constitutional level of punitive damages is not a finding of fact that must be determined by the jury it may be determined de novo by the court holding that the plaintiff cannot defeat federal jurisdiction by reducing his claim for damages after removal because the amount in controversy is determined by looking at the complaint when filed holding prejudgment interest is to be determined on the entire amount of compensatory damages and then reduced by the amount of interest which would have accrued at present value on the settlement amount determined before trial recognizing that federal removal jurisdiction is determined by the amount of damages a plaintiff seeks