MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JANE J. BOYLE, District Judge.

Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Doc. 14, Mot., ¶ 6. Plaintiff argues that because the amount-in-controversy is now established to be less than the jurisdictional threshold, the Court must remand this case to state court. Id. ¶ 7.

Specifically, Plaintiff states that when she filed suit originally in state court, her damages at that time were "unknown" because she was still receiving medical treatment. Id. ¶ 8. She now states that she has completed her medical care, and her total past-incurred medical bills are only $15,832.75. Id. She has served Defendants with a stipulation that she will not seek more than $75,000 in damages, including attorneys' fees. Id. Ex. B.

While she may now be seeking less than the jurisdictional minimum, this does not necessarily mean that remand is appropriate. Although post-removal events that reduce the amount in controversy can divest the court of diversity jurisdiction in certain circumstances, that is not the case here. "[I]f it is facially apparent from the petition that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 at the time of removal, post-removal affidavits, stipulations, and amendments reducing the amount do not deprive the district court of jurisdiction." Gebbia v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 233 F.3d 880, 883 (5th Cir. 2000) (asserting that "post-removal affidavits may be considered in determining the amount in controversy at the time of removal . . . only if the basis for jurisdiction is ambiguous at the time of removal").

And it is facially apparent from Plaintiff's state-court petition, which was operative at the time of removal, that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. In that petition, Plaintiff specifically stated that she seeks "monetary relief of over $1,000,000.00 but not more than $10,000,000.00" for her slip-and-fall case. Doc. 1-2, Pl.'s App'x, 13 (Orig. Pet. ¶ 23) (seeking, inter alia, damages for medical expenses, physical pain, lost earnings, loss of household services, and mental anguish). This is not an ambiguous statement of the amount in controversy; jurisdiction clearly attached at the time of removal, and Plaintiff offers no other grounds for remand. Thus, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Doc. 14).

SO ORDERED.