had properly filed an Amended Complaint in state court on August 13, 2002. Therefore, on August 21, 2002, Defendant filed an Amended Notice of Removal to which the Defendant attached, among other exhibits, the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint of August 13, 2002. 2 . However, Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint states that Plaintiffs "believe [the amount of damages] does not exceed the sum of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs." (Am. Notice of Removal, Ex. A at 9). To resolve the issues presented, the Court need not determine at this time whether a request for damages in a specific amount less than $75,000 is relevant evidence in making the jurisdictional valuation and/or triggers a more stringent standard. See, e.g., Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1095 (11th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). 3 . In support of this proposition Defendant
holding that the stipulation included in the plaintiffs petitionthat the maximum amount of damages sought or that would be accepted wpuld not exceed 75000 exclusive of costs and interest bound the plaintiff and was sufficient to defeat diversity jurisdiction holding that defendants claim that the cost of injunctive relief would exceed 75000 was too speculative holding that the debtor must request attorneys fees in the answer to a complaint in a  523a case holding that where plaintiff has set forth in the complaint a specific request for damages and attorneys fees that on its face is an amount less than the jurisdictional minimum the defendant must prove to a legal certainty that plaintiffs claim must exceed 75000 holding that court of appeals erred by rendering judgment for full amount of attorneys fees sought after reversing 0 fee award because jury awarded less in damages than amount sought and therefore uncontroverted attorney testimony on amount of attorneys fees did not establish amount of reasonable and necessary fees as a matter of law