4
omitted).
Diversity jurisdiction requires that the controversy be between citizens of
different states, and that the amount in controversy exceed $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a)(1). Whether diversity jurisdiction exists is determined by examining “the facts
as they exist when the complaint is filed.” Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490
U.S. 826, 830 (1989); Grand Union Supermarkets of the V.I., Inc. v. H.E. Lockhart
Mgmt., Inc., 316 F.3d 408, 410 (3d Cir. 2003).
In determining whether the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, the
Court generally accepts the plaintiff’s good faith allegations. Columbia Gas
Transmission Corp. v. Tarbuck, 62 F.3d 538, 541 (3d Cir. 1995). However, the case may
be dismissed for failure to meet the amount in controversy requirement if it appears to a
“legal certainty” that the claim is for less than the jurisdictional amount. St. Paul
Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289 (1938); Dardovitch v. Haltzman,
190 F.3d 125, 135 (3d Cir. 1999). It necessarily follows that whether the claims are for
less than the jurisdictional amount depends on what damages a plaintiff could
conceivably recover under state law. Suber v. Chrysler Corp., 104 F.3d 578, 584 (3d Cir.
1997). When punitive damages are recoverable, they are properly considered in
determining whether the jurisdictional amount has been satisfied, see Packard v.
Provident Nat’l Bank, 994 F.2d 1039, 1046 (3d Cir. 1993), but when a claim for punitive
damages is frivolous, “such damages are unavailable as a matter of law” and “that claim
must be stricken from the amount in controversy,” id.