in lost revenue 150, 154 (D.D.C.2007) (finding defendant’s claim that “the total cost ‘is certain’ to exceed $75,000” insufficient to establish jurisdiction). Here, Monster merely asserts that complying with the injunction would cause it to “suffer a decrease in revenue in an amount greater than $75,000.” See Def.’s Opp’n at 14. It argues that “[t]his conclusion follows logically from the fact that [defendant] sold more than $2,000,000 of Monster Energy products in the District of Columbia” in the three years before the complaint was filed. See id. As an initial matter, and as Zuckman points out, courts have held that it is improper to consider a decrease in future revenue as a cost of complying with an injunction. See, e.g., Snow v. Ford Motor Co., 561 F.2d 787, 790 (9th Cir.1977) (<HOLDING>). As a result, Monster’s contention that
holding that in the event it is not faeiaby apparent from the underlying complaint that the jurisdictional amount has been satisfied the court may rely on summary judgmenttype evidence to ascertain the amount in controversy holding that a court may deny a request for injunctive relief in a summary judgment proceeding if it is clear the plaintiff cannot meet the requirements for an injunction holding that the amount of sanctions is appropriate only when it is the minimum that will serve to adequately deter the undesirable behavior holding minimum amount in controversy required for district court jurisdiction is 20001 holding that injunctive relief does not meet the amount in controversy when the only reason the injunction is worth more than the jurisdictional minimum is that it would affect defendants future sales