With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". at 498. The Court recognizes that defendant, with some justification, is frustrated by plaintiffs careful limitation of her claim to the jurisdictional limit, as amended and as it previously existed. Defendant’s removal is based solely on plaintiffs settlement demand of $75,000.00. This is insufficient to establish the jurisdictional amount for two reasons. First, the mere existence of a settlement demand is not dispositive of the issue of the jurisdictional amount. See, e.g., King v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 940 F.Supp. 213, 217 n. 1 (S.D.Ind.1996); Saunders v. Rider, 805 F.Supp. 17, 18-19 (E.D.La.1992). Second, for diversity jurisdiction to attach, the amount in controversy must exceed the value of $75,000.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); see Larkin v. Brown, 41 F.3d 387, 389 (8th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Assuming arguendo that plaintiffs case is

A: holding that the crossappeal time limit is jurisdictional
B: holding under former jurisdictional limit that diversity jurisdiction did not exist where plaintiff sought damages of exactly 5000000
C: holding 30day limit to be mandatory and jurisdictional
D: holding that because there was complete diversity when the action commenced diversity jurisdiction was not defeated by the addition of a nondiverse plaintiff which was not indispensable
B.