With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". or other proof submitted, it “appears to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less.” St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co., 303 U.S. at 288-89, 58 S.Ct. at 589-90, 82 L.Ed. at 845. It is then up to the plaintiff to refute the implication that" jurisdiction is lacking. Gibbs v. Buck, 307 U.S. 66, 59 S.Ct. 725, 83 L.Ed. 1111 (1939); Nelson v. Keefer, 451 F.2d 289 (3d Cir.1971); Independent Mach., 991 F.Supp. at 691; Associated Business Tel. Systems Corp. v. Danihels, 829 F.Supp. 707, 709-10 (D.N.J.1993). Where a case has been removed, however, the amount in controversy is generally gleaned from the plaintiffs complaint. Angus v. Shiley, Inc., 989 F.2d 142, 145 (3d Cir.1993); Independent Mach., 991 F.Supp. at 691; see also Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092,1095-97 (11th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Wilson v. Belin, 20 F.3d 644, 651 n. 8 (5th

A: holding that the plaintiff cannot defeat federal jurisdiction by reducing his claim for damages after removal because the amount in controversy is determined by looking at the complaint when filed
B: recognizing that federal removal jurisdiction is determined by the amount of damages a plaintiff seeks
C: holding that the constitutional level of punitive damages is not a finding of fact that must be determined by the jury it may be determined de novo by the court
D: holding that when plaintiff has proven injury but has failed to prove the amount of damages the plaintiff is only entitled to nominal damages
B.