303 U.S. 283, 294-295 (1938)
In June 1934, the respondent, an Indiana corporation, commenced an action in the Superior Court of Marion County, Indiana, against the petitioner, a Minnesota corporation doing business in Indiana, and its agent Harlan.1 The complaint alleged that the petitioner had issued an insurance binder covering workmen's compensation claims for thirty days starting December 30, 1933, that employees had suffered injuries during that period, that the petitioner had denied liability, and that the respondent had incurred expenses and obligations as a result, seeking $4,000 in damages along with other relief including an order against Harlan.2
Upon the petitioner's application, the case was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.3
The respondent subsequently filed an amended complaint and then a second amended complaint for breach of contract and damages, repeating the original allegations and claiming $4,000, but attaching an exhibit listing specific expenditures totaling $1,380.89.4
The district court dismissed Harlan as a defendant, transferred the cause to the law docket, overruled a demurrer, and after a bench trial entered judgment for the respondent in the amount of $1,162.98.5
The petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which declined to address the merits on the ground that the record showed the respondent's claim fell below the amount required for federal jurisdiction and that the case should have been remanded to the state court.6
Whether, although at the time of removal of a cause from a state court the complaint disclosed an amount in controversy requisite to the federal court’s jurisdiction, a subsequent amendment reducing the sum claimed to substantially less than that amount necessitates remand to the state court?7
The rule is that in a suit instituted in a state court and removed to federal court, the status of the case as disclosed by the plaintiff’s complaint is controlling, and though the plaintiff after removal by amendment of his pleadings reduces the claim below the requisite amount, this does not deprive the district court of jurisdiction.8
No. The respondent's original complaint sought $4,000 in damages, which exceeded the jurisdictional threshold of $3,000 exclusive of interest and costs at the time of removal by the petitioner.9 The subsequent filing of a second amended complaint attaching an exhibit totaling $1,380.89 and the district court's entry of judgment for $1,162.98 constitute events occurring after removal that reduced the amount recoverable, but under the governing rule such reductions do not oust the jurisdiction that attached upon removal based on the face of the initial complaint.10
A subsequent amendment reducing the sum claimed below the jurisdictional amount does not necessitate remand to the state court.11