limit her claimed damages below the jurisdictional amount of this Court. She made no claim for a specific sum of damages in her complaint or in her Motion for Remand, and neither has she provided an affidavit indicating that her claimed damages do not meet the amount in controversy requisite nor has she responded to the defendant’s request to clarify the amount of damages she actually is seeking. See Asociacion Nacional de Pescadores a Pequena Escala o Artesanales de Colombia v. Dow Quimica de Colombia, S.A., 988 F.2d 559, 566 (5th Cir.1993), abrogated on other grounds by Marathon Oil Co. v. Ruhrgas, 145 F.3d 211 (5th Cir.1998) (“[A]t least where the following circumstances are present, [the removing party’s burden of establishing diversi itigation, 918 F.Supp. 178, 179 (E.D.Tex.1996) (<HOLDING>). Thus, if so inclined, the plaintiff may
holding that the plaintiffs second complaint did not relate back to her first complaint because her second complaint was not an amendment to her first complaint but rather a separate filing holding that a plaintiff can defeat removal by filing a binding affidavit with her complaint stating that she will not seek or accept more than the jurisdictional amount holding that filing of an administrative complaint did not meet the requirement that the employee seek counseling prior to filing holding that the standard for withholding of removal is a showing that it is more likely than not that a petitioner will face persecution upon her return holding that the statements in the plaintiffs  original petition along with the sworn declaration attached to her original petition stating that  she would not accept a judgment or recovery greater than 74000 were sufficient to bind the plaintiff to a recovery of no more than 74000