ORDER

KATHLEEN KAY, Magistrate Judge.

Upon further reflection on [31] the Memorandum Order which remanded this matter to the undersigned to determine if the amount in controversy is satisfied, and reconsidering the court's [40] Order allowing the parties to submit evidence as to the amount in controversy, we hereby RESCIND the [40] Order. In order to comply with the [31] Memorandum Order we will reexamine the evidence before us filed at the time of removal in order to determine if the "amountin-controversy requirement is satisfied between the compensatory damages and injunctive relief sought." Doc. 31. See also Gebbia v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 233 F.3d 880, 883 (5th Cir. 2000) ("The jurisdictional facts that support removal must be judged at the time of removal.")

The court, in accordance with established jurisprudence, will make a determination if the defendant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence whether it is facially apparent that the claims exceed $75,000 or if facts set forth in the removing petition support a finding of the requisite amount in controversy. Luckett v. Delta Airlines, Inc. 171 F.3d 295, 298 (5th Cir.1999). The parties are invited to re-brief this issue but additional evidence will not be considered.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the #40 Order issued by this court on October 14, 2015 is hereby RESCINDED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants may submit a brief on the issue of jurisdiction on or before November 23, 2015 and any opposition thereto may be submitted on or before December 3, 2015. A reply brief may be submitted on or before December 10, 2015.