D. New Hampshire Discusses Removal Jurisdiction; Once Established, a Subsequent Change of Events Does not Defeat Jurisdiction

Per Scott v. First American Title Insurance Co., 2007 WL 135909 (D.N.H. Jan. 17, 2007):

While the motion to dismiss was pending, the plaintiffs moved to remand the case to state court, asserting that the amount in controversy does not meet the jurisdictional minimum. Because the motion to remand challenges the court's jurisdiction, that motion will be addressed first.

Once jurisdiction attaches, based on a jurisdictional amount that is alleged in good faith, "it is not ousted by a subsequent change of events." Coventry Sewage Assocs. v. Dworkin Realty Co., 71 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir.1995). Even the discovery of an error or different circumstances that reduces the amount initially claimed does not affect jurisdiction. Id. at 7-8. . . . First American's removal notice adequately alleged the amount in controversy to satisfy § 1332(d)(2)(A). The plaintiffs' jurisdictional allegations in the subsequent amended complaints established jurisdiction. The second amended complaint, filed on September 5, 2006, remains the operative pleading in this case. New information that may raise questions as to the accuracy of those allegations does not undermine the jurisdiction that the plaintiffs allegations previously established. Therefore, the motion to remand is denied.