With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to June 1, 2013.” (Id). This means that, on average, Plaintiff alleges a loss of roughly $1,912 per month. Assuming that the loss continued to accrue at that rate, at the time of Plaintiffs Motion to Amend the loss would have only equated to a total damages claim of about $40,200. In order to have met the $75,000 threshold, based on the allegation of continuing damages alone, Plaintiff would have had to accrue an additional $57,791, or roughly $4,816 per month, in damages between June 1, 2013 and May 20, 2014. Defendant was given no reason to know or believe that Plaintiff would, after the one year period had run, claim an almost threefold increase in damages or that his damages were allegedly accruing at more than double the rate initially claimed. See Barnett, 973 F.Supp. at 1367 (<HOLDING>). Second, Plaintiff contends that there is no

A: holding that the relevant time of inquiry is the date of the filing of the complaint
B: holding that since defendant failed to timely remove the original complaint which was removable based on federal question jurisdiction defendant thereby waived its right to file a subsequent removal even though the complaint was amended to add a new federal claim where the amendment to the complaint did not change the nature of the action so as to constitute a substantially new suit since the new allegations and claims were not substantially different from those in the original complaint
C: holding that equitable exception to one year limit applied where defendant had no reason to believe that plaintiff would increase the scope of claims after the filing of the original complaint
D: holding that the mere metaphysical possibility that some plaintiff could prove some set of facts in support of the pleaded claims is insufficient the complaint must give the court reason to believe that this plaintiff has a reasonable likelihood of mustering factual support for these claims
C.