Plaintiff-Appellant Regina White (‘‘White’’) brought suit against Defendant-Appellee FCI USA, Inc (‘‘FCI’’), White’s former employer, for wrongful termination on March 29, 2001, in the 246th Judicial District Court of El Paso County, Texas (‘‘state court’’). White based her suit upon [citation], which permits suits for wrongful termination where the employee was terminated for refusal to perform illegal acts.

   In her Original Petition, White prayed that the judgment include punitive damages, attorney’s fees, prejudgment interest, court costs, and compensatory damages for lost pay, lost fringe benefits, front pay, loss of wage earning capacity, harm to White’s credit and credit reputation, and mental anguish and emotional distress (both past and future). The Original Petition did not specify how much monetary relief White was seeking.

   FCI removed on May 25, 2001, asserting removal jurisdiction on the basis of diversity. In its Notice of Removal, FCI asserted that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.

   White filed a Motion to Remand, but the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (‘‘district court’’) denied her motion. The district court concluded that FCI had set forth facts sufficient to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement was met.

* * *

   Diversity jurisdiction under [citation] only exists where the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. [Citation.] White correctly notes that the amount in controversy should be determined at the time of filing. [Citation.] However, White never specified the total amount of monetary relief she was seeking.

   Where the plaintiff fails to allege a specific amount of damages, this Court has prescribed a procedure for determining the amount in controversy:

* * * [W]hen a complaint does not allege a specific amount of damages, the party invoking federal jurisdiction must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount. The district court must first examine the complaint to determine whether it is ‘‘facially apparent’’ that the claims exceed the jurisdictional amount. If it is not thus apparent, the court may rely on ‘‘summary judgment-type’’ evidence to ascertain the amount in controversy. [Citation.]

   The district court examined the Original Petition on its face and evaluated the evidence presented by FCI. The district court concluded it was ‘‘more probable than not’’ that the lengthy list of compensatory and punitive damages sought by White, when combined with attorney’s fees, would exceed $75,000. [Citation.] In fact, the district court concluded that the compensatory damages or punitive damages alone would ‘‘in all likelihood’’ exceed $75,000. [Citation.] The district court also noted White’s admission that her damages ‘‘[did] not yet equal’’ $75,000 but ‘‘it [was] possible that [they] will exceed $75,000.00 at the time of trial.’’ On the basis of this evidence and analysis, the district court found that the amount-in-controversy requirement was met.

* * *

   In its Requests for Admission, FCI asked White to admit or deny that she was seeking damages of $75,000 or more. White admitted that her damages ‘‘[did] not yet equal’’ $75,000 but ‘‘it [was] possible that [they] will exceed $75,000.00 at the time of trial.’’ Through this language, White implied that the amount in controversy was not limited to the damages she suffered before her filing. Instead, White indicated that she was seeking continuing and future damages as well.

* * *

    This Court has held that ‘‘the jurisdictional facts that support removal must be judged at the time of the removal.’’ [Citation.] At the time of removal, it was apparent from the face of the Original Petition and the evidence presented by FCI that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. The preponderance of the evidence thus indicated that the amount-in-controversy requirement was met. This Court has held that ‘‘once a defendant is able to show that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount, removal is proper, provided plaintiff has not shown that it is legally certain that his recovery will not exceed the amount stated.’’ [Citation.] White failed to specify an amount of damages less than $75,000 or to present any substantive evidence in support of her motion to remand. White thus failed to show that it was legally certain that her recovery will not exceed $75,000.

   Based on the preponderance of evidence, this Court affirms the district court’s conclusion that the amount-incontroversy requirement was met.