the previous dismissal and retain jurisdiction on the grounds that the plaintiff had engaged in improper game-playing. Id. The district court declined to do. so, basing its decision upon the absolute right of a plaintiff to dismiss his case before an answer has been filed. Id. However, the court noted that the defendant was not left without recourse. The proper course of action was for it to remove the new case and argue that the real amount in controversy was higher than the amount alleged. Id. at *2. Though it did not explicitly state so, the district court apparently felt that the amount claimed in the prior complaint could serve as evidence of the “real amount in controversy” in the subsequently filed claim. See also St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co., 303 U.S. at 288-89, 58 S.Ct. 586 (<HOLDING>). There is some indication that the plaintiff
recognizing that federal removal jurisdiction is determined by the amount of damages a plaintiff seeks holding that the district court erred in not determining whether the amount in controversy necessary to create diversity jurisdiction was met at the time of removal holding that jurisdiction is determined at the time the complaint is filed and postfiling events cannot create jurisdiction 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 that the burden is on defendant as the party invoking removal jurisdiction to establish the existence of a sufficient amount in controversy