argument is initially quite coaxing. After all, this case involves a claim for punitive damages, and punitive damages awards against finance and insurance companies in Mississippi routinely exceed the jurisdictional amount. See, e.g., Independent Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Peavy, 528 So.2d 1112 (Miss.1988) (affirming jury award of $250,000 in punitive damages); Andrew Jackson Life Ins. Co. v. Williams, 566 S.2d 1172 (Miss.1990) (affirming jury award of $200,000 in punitive damages). But this case is unique. Here, Davis has submitted an affidavit in which she expressly limits her damages to less than $75,000.00. Under Fifth Circuit precedent, this Court is permitted to consider Davis’s affidavit. See, e.g., St. Paul Reinsurance Co., Ltd. v. Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 (5th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). As such, the Court finds that Davis is legaby
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 holding that summary judgment on one claim that reduced amount in controversy below statutory minimum did not divest court of jurisdiction holding that a hospital may not assert a statutory lien in an amount exceeding the amount it agreed to accept from the patients insurer 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 the burden is on defendant as the party invoking removal jurisdiction to establish the existence of a sufficient amount in controversy