In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ 

Nos. 22-1844 & 22-2256 

TERESA F. SYKES and SHIRLEY A. PARTON, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v.

COOK INCORPORATED, COOK MEDICAL

LLC, and WILLIAM COOK EUROPE APS, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

____________________ 

Appeals from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. 

Nos. 19-cv-1167 & 18-cv-3371 — Richard L. Young, Judge. 

____________________ 

ARGUED JANUARY 6, 2023 — DECIDED JUNE 23, 2023 

____________________ 

Before EASTERBROOK, ST. EVE, and KIRSCH, Circuit Judges. 

ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. These appeals are from two cases 

consolidated in a multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) proceeding. 

MDL plaintiffs allege they have been injured by defective inferior vena cava (“IVC”) filters manufactured by Cook Inc. 

and related entities (collectively, “Cook”). Shirley Parton and 

Teresa Sykes are two such plaintiffs. About a decade ago, each 

was implanted with a Cook IVC filter. Several years later, CT 
2 Nos. 22-1844 & 22-2256

scans revealed that their filters had perforated their IVC walls. 

They had experienced no pain or other symptoms, but because their filters had perforated their veins, they pursued 

product liability claims against Cook. The direct-filing procedure the district court had adopted for the MDL did not require Parton or Sykes to file a standard complaint. Instead, 

each filed a short-form complaint, which incorporated allegations from a master complaint that ostensibly applied to all 

direct-filing plaintiffs. The district court later granted Cook’s 

motion for summary judgment. Parton and Sykes appealed, 

but before reaching the merits, we must answer a threshold 

question: Is there federal subject-matter jurisdiction?

There is not. Jurisdiction in these cases is based solely on 

diversity of citizenship, which requires the amount in controversy in each case to exceed $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Parton and Sykes allege the proper amount in controversy, but

the nature of their alleged injuries makes clear that no more 

than $75,000 is at stake in either case. Therefore, the district 

court never had jurisdiction over their cases.

I. Background

A. The Cook IVC Filter MDL

In 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the 

“Panel”) centralized cases arising out of alleged defects in 

Cook’s IVC filters and transferred the cases to the Southern 

District of Indiana pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a). In re Cook 

Med., Inc., IVC Filters Mktg., Sales Pracs. & Prods. Liab. Litig., 53 

F. Supp. 3d 1379, 1380 (J.P.M.L. 2014) (mem.). Many plaintiffs

in the MDL claim that Cook’s filters cause pain and suffering, 

disabilities, emotional injuries, lost earnings, increased medical bills, and in some cases death. Like many MDLs based on 
Nos. 22-1844 & 22-2256 3 

mass torts, the Cook MDL consisted of thousands of cases. See

Margaret S. Williams, The Effect of Multidistrict Litigation on the 

Federal Judiciary over the Past 50 Years, 53 Ga. L. Rev. 1245, 1274 

tbl.2A (2019). To help manage the litigation, the district court 

adopted two procedures relevant to these appeals: direct filing and case categorization.

1. Direct Filing

A common MDL procedure is direct filing, which offers 

plaintiffs a more efficient route into an MDL. See Looper v. Cook 

Inc., 20 F.4th 387, 390–91 (7th Cir. 2021). The MDL statute contemplates consolidating cases “pending” in federal district 

courts. § 1407(a). In addition to actions pending when the 

Panel creates an MDL, the Panel transfers related “[t]ag-along 

action[s]” that are later filed in or removed to federal court. 

See J.P.M.L. R. P. 1.1(h). In those cases, plaintiffs “file ... in 

their home jurisdictions ... and then wait for their cases to be 

tagged and later transferred to the MDL.” Looper, 20 F.4th at 

390. But when an MDL uses direct filing, the defendant may 

agree to waive objections based on personal jurisdiction and 

venue, allowing any plaintiff to file suit in the district in which 

the MDL is pending—provided, of course, that federal subject-matter jurisdiction over her case exists. See Andrew D. 

Bradt, The Shortest Distance: Direct Filing and Choice of Law in 

Multidistrict Litigation, 88 Notre Dame L. Rev. 759, 794 (2012). 

The district court here instituted a direct-filing procedure, 

pursuant to which lawyers appointed to manage the litigation 

on behalf of all plaintiffs filed a master complaint “for incorporation and adoption by individual plaintiffs.” The master 

complaint set forth the factual background and causes of action pursued by MDL plaintiffs. Paragraphs 6–28 addressed 

jurisdiction and included detailed allegations about Cook’s 
4 Nos. 22-1844 & 22-2256

citizenship, but just two paragraphs related to the amount in 

controversy. Those paragraphs read:

8. As a direct and proximate result of having Defendants’ IVC Filters implanted in them, Plaintiffs named 

in their respective Short Form Complaints have suffered permanent and continuous injuries, pain and suffering, disability and impairment. Plaintiffs have suffered emotional trauma, harm and injuries that will 

continue into the future. Plaintiffs have lost their ability 

to live a normal life, and will continue to be so diminished into the future. Furthermore, Plaintiffs have lost 

earnings and will continue to lose earnings into the future and have medical bills both past and future related to care because of the IVC filters’ defects.

... 

23. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1332 because the Plaintiff and the Defendants 

are citizens of different states, and the amount in controversy exceeds seventy-five thousand dollars 

($75,000.00), excluding interest and costs and there is 

complete diversity of citizenship between Plaintiff and 

Defendant. 

The master complaint was paired with a short-form complaint, a five-page form that incorporated the master complaint’s allegations by reference and allowed a plaintiff to fill 

in individualized details. These details included personal and 

medical information, the plaintiff’s state of residence1 both 

1 It would have been better practice to ask about the plaintiff’s state of 

citizenship or domicile. Diversity jurisdiction depends on the citizenship 
Nos. 22-1844 & 22-2256 5 

when the injury occurred and when the complaint was filed, 

and the district in which venue would be proper if the case 

was not directly filed. The short-form complaint also asked 

the plaintiff to check boxes designating the causes of action 

she wished to pursue and to note the paragraphs in the master 

complaint that supported jurisdiction and venue. It also contained space for the plaintiff to add additional jurisdictional 

allegations or causes of action not stated in the master complaint.

2. Case Categorization 

The district court also adopted a case-categorization plan 

“to ensure pending and future filed cases allege a cognizable 

injury.” The plan required each plaintiff to complete a casecategorization form sorting her case into at least one of seven 

categories based on the type of injury alleged. Category 6 

comprised asymptomatic injury cases in which “the Plaintiff 

alleges non-symptomatic filter movement, migration, penetration, perforation, thrombosis, occlusion or the presence of 

a clot in the filter that has not produced physical symptoms 

or complications.” Category 7, symptomatic injury cases, covered plaintiffs who suffered harm from their IVC filter perforations. It listed 10 possible perforation-related injuries, including death. Plaintiffs were required to “certify the respective outcomes, complications, and injuries claimed by submitting a specific medical record [as] evidence[].” The case-categorization forms were not evidence, but the court and parties 

used them to screen and select cases for bellwether trials.

of the parties, which is not synonymous with residence. Tylka v. Gerber 

Prods. Co., 211 F.3d 445, 447–48 (7th Cir. 2000). 
6 Nos. 22-1844 & 22-2256

B. The Plaintiffs

1. Shirley Parton 

Shirley Parton is a Kentucky citizen. On April 2, 2012, she 

was successfully implanted with an IVC filter manufactured 

by Cook. After nearly six years with no filter issues, Parton 

received a CT scan, which revealed that her filter had perforated her IVC wall by 4.2 mm. The record does not disclose 

why Parton underwent the scan; she experienced neither pain 

nor other symptoms associated with her filter before or after 

learning about the perforation.

Parton filed her suit directly in the Southern District of Indiana on November 1, 2018. To support jurisdiction and 

venue, she incorporated paragraphs 6–28 of the master complaint, and she added no additional jurisdictional allegations. 

Parton’s initial case-categorization form placed her case in

Category 6, asymptomatic injury, but on November 25, 2020, 

she filed a supplemental form reclassifying her case as Category 7, symptomatic injury. The injury she identified was 

“penetration or perforation – consisting of a filter strut or anchor extending 3 or more mm outside the wall of the IVC as 

demonstrated on imaging.” When asked to describe her injury, Parton stated, “One of the filter’s struts has perforated 

Plaintiff’s inferior vena cava, the maximum distance perforated is 4.2 mm.” 

2. Teresa Sykes 

Teresa Sykes, a Texas citizen at all times relevant to this 

litigation, experienced a similar sequence of events. She was 

successfully implanted with a Cook IVC filter on August 1, 

2013. After nearly six years without issue, Sykes received a CT 

scan on January 24, 2019, which showed that the filter had 
Nos. 22-1844 & 22-2256 7 

perforated her IVC wall to a maximum distance of 8.01 mm. 

Like Parton, the record does not disclose why Sykes received 

the scan, and Sykes does not allege that she experienced any 

pain or complications prior to the scan or immediately after 

discovering the perforation.

Sykes directly filed her case in the Southern District of Indiana on March 22, 2019. Like Parton, Sykes incorporated paragraphs 6–28 of the master complaint to support jurisdiction 

and venue, and she declined to add supplemental allegations.

She initially classified her case as Category 6 (asymptomatic 

injury) but in a December 1, 2020, supplemental case-categorization form reclassified her case as Category 7 (symptomatic 

injury) because “[f]our prongs have perforated the IVC. Maximum distance prongs perforated 8.01 mm.” 

The primary difference between Sykes’s case and Parton’s 

is that Sykes has developed symptoms since she filed her 

complaint. In a sworn declaration, Sykes stated, “Since mid2019, I have suffered constant, excruciating abdominal pain. I 

have visited four different hospitals regarding this abdominal 

pain. Each hospital performed tests that ruled out gallbladder 

issues as the cause of the pain.” Sykes did not, however, attribute this pain to her IVC perforation in her supplemental 

case-categorization form or anywhere else during discovery.

C. Cook’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Cook moved for judgment on the pleadings in July 2020, 

arguing that under the applicable state law, an asymptomatic 

IVC perforation is not a legally cognizable injury, so no cause 

of action had accrued to the plaintiffs. At the plaintiffs’ request, the district court converted Cook’s motion to a motion 

for summary judgment and permitted Parton and Sykes to 
8 Nos. 22-1844 & 22-2256

offer evidence showing that Cook was not entitled to summary judgment. The district court granted Cook’s motion for 

summary judgment in September 2021. It found that to proceed on this kind of tort claim, Kentucky law requires a plaintiff to show “present physical injury,” while Texas law requires “actual injury.” Even viewing the record in the light 

most favorable to the plaintiffs, the court found that “neither 

Sykes nor Parton has brought forth evidence showing that 

their asymptomatic perforations have caused any present 

physical impairment or detriment to their health.”

This appeal followed. At oral argument, we asked whether 

there was a sufficient amount in controversy in Parton’s and 

Sykes’s cases to invoke federal subject-matter jurisdiction. We 

ordered supplemental briefing on this issue, and we invited 

the parties to discuss whether any jurisdictional defect could 

be cured by amending the pleadings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1653. Neither plaintiff sought to amend her jurisdictional allegations, and both sides argued that we have subject-matter

jurisdiction.

II. Jurisdictional Framework 

Our subject-matter jurisdiction over these appeals is based 

on diversity of citizenship. The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing that it exists. Page v. 

Democratic Nat’l Comm., 2 F.4th 630, 634 (7th Cir. 2021). Congress has authorized federal jurisdiction over civil actions in 

which there is complete diversity of citizenship and more 

than $75,000 is in controversy. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). This MDL 

involves individual actions, so each case must involve diverse 

parties and satisfy the requisite amount in controversy. See 

Guilbeau v. Pfizer Inc., 880 F.3d 304, 307 n.1 (7th Cir. 2018) (noting that we can adjudicate MDL cases on the merits only 
Nos. 22-1844 & 22-2256 9 

“where federal subject matter jurisdiction is secure”); see also 

In re Korean Air Lines Co., 642 F.3d 685, 699 (9th Cir. 2011) 

(“[T]he MDL transferee court is generally bound by the same 

substantive legal standards ... as would have applied in the 

transferor court.” (footnote omitted)). Diversity of citizenship 

presents no problem, but the amount-in-controversy requirement is a thornier issue. To determine whether there is more 

than $75,000 at stake in each plaintiff’s case, we apply the “legal certainty” test articulated in St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. 

v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283 (1938). 

To meet the amount-in-controversy requirement, a plaintiff suing in federal court must allege in good faith that “the 

controversy entails a dispute over more than $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs.” Page, 2 F.4th at 634 (citing 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332(a)). This requirement is not onerous. The plaintiff’s allegations about the amount in controversy control unless the 

court concludes, “to a legal certainty,” that “the face of the 

pleadings” demonstrates “that the plaintiff cannot recover” 

the jurisdictional minimum or that “the proofs” show that 

“the plaintiff never was entitled to recover that amount.” St. 

Paul Mercury, 303 U.S. at 289. Put differently, the court has jurisdiction unless an award for the jurisdictional minimum 

would be legally impossible. See Webb v. FINRA, 889 F.3d 853, 

859 & n.4 (7th Cir. 2018). 

We assess the amount in controversy as of the date on 

which a case is filed in or removed to federal court. Parker v. 

Four Seasons Hotels, Ltd., 845 F.3d 807, 809 (7th Cir. 2017); 
10 Nos. 22-1844 & 22-2256

Carroll v. Stryker Corp., 658 F.3d 675, 680–81 (7th Cir. 2011).2 If 

on the date of filing, the plaintiff could allege in good faith 

that over $75,000 was at stake, then the amount-in-controversy requirement is satisfied. Parker, 845 F.3d at 809.3 Events 

occurring after the filing date are relevant only if they “clarify 

what the plaintiff was actually seeking when the case was 

[filed or] removed.” Carroll, 658 F.3d at 680–81 (citations omitted). If the actual claim is for less than the jurisdictional minimum, then the court lacks jurisdiction. See id. at 681; Huber v. 

Taylor, 532 F.3d 237, 243–44 (3d Cir. 2008) (“Dismissal is warranted ... only when a subsequent revelation clearly establishes that the plaintiff’s claims never could have amounted 

to the sum necessary to support diversity jurisdiction.” (citation omitted)).

Either a party or the court can trigger application of the 

legal certainty test. Because the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving jurisdiction, her opponent 

can hold her to that burden. Meridian Sec. Ins. Co. v. Sadowski, 

441 F.3d 536, 540–41 (7th Cir. 2006). If the “material factual 

allegations” concerning jurisdiction are contested, the proponent of federal jurisdiction must “prove those jurisdictional 

facts by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. at 543. The 

2 If the plaintiff voluntarily amends her complaint, we instead assess 

the amount in controversy as of the date of amendment. Rockwell Int’l Corp. 

v. United States, 549 U.S. 457, 473–74 (2007).

3 A defendant who removes a case to federal court bears the heavier 

“burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence facts that suggest the jurisdictional amount has been satisfied,” after which “jurisdiction will be defeated only if it appears to a legal certainty that the stakes 

of the lawsuit do not exceed $75,000.” Carroll, 658 F.3d at 680 (footnote and 

citations omitted).
Nos. 22-1844 & 22-2256 11 

court, not the jury, finds the jurisdictional facts, see Ill. Ins. 

Guar. Fund v. Becerra, 33 F.4th 916, 922 (7th Cir. 2022), after 

which the court dismisses for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction “[o]nly if it is ‘legally certain’ that the recovery (from 

plaintiff’s perspective) or cost of complying with the judgment (from defendant’s) will be less than the jurisdictional 

floor.” Meridian, 441 F.3d at 543. 

The court has an independent obligation to ensure it has 

jurisdiction, and it may raise an amount-in-controversy issue

even if the parties do not. Webb, 889 F.3d at 856. But because a

plaintiff need only allege in good faith a sufficient amount in 

controversy, the court will apply the legal certainty test on its 

own motion only when it has “reason to question the sufficiency” of the complaint’s jurisdictional allegations. Cf. Page, 

2 F.4th at 634 (citing St. Paul Mercury, 303 U.S. at 288). Further, 

when no party contests jurisdictional allegations, “the standard of proof [for jurisdictional facts] is irrelevant,” Meridian, 

441 F.3d at 543, and the court views the facts in the light most 

favorable to finding jurisdiction. See Webb, 889 F.3d at 859 n.4; 

James Neff Kramper Fam. Farm P’ship v. IBP, Inc., 393 F.3d 828, 

833 (8th Cir. 2005) (“The jurisdictional fact is not whether the 

damages are greater than the requisite amount, but whether a 

fact finder might legally conclude they are.” (internal alteration omitted) (quoting Kopp v. Kopp, 280 F.3d 883, 885 (8th Cir. 

2002))). 

When assessing the amount in controversy, the court may 

consider the full record, including the pleadings and any attachments, as well as evidence produced in discovery. See St. 

Paul Mercury, 303 U.S. at 289; Meridian, 441 F.3d at 540–41; 

14AA Charles A. Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure 

§ 3702.3 (4th ed. Apr. 2022 update). The purpose of examining 
12 Nos. 22-1844 & 22-2256

the record is limited, however, to finding disputed jurisdictional facts and determining whether the plaintiff could have 

alleged, in good faith, that the requisite amount was in controversy on the date that the suit was filed or removed. See 

Carroll, 658 F.3d at 680–81. A plaintiff’s inability to prove an 

essential element of her claim does not implicate the court’s 

jurisdiction unless the record shows that the plaintiff did not 

make her initial allegations about the amount in controversy 

in good faith. See Clark v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 473 

F.3d 708, 711–12 (7th Cir. 2007). 

The court applies state law to decide whether more than 

$75,000 is in controversy. Webb, 889 F.3d at 859. The relevant 

inquiry is not whether a recovery of more than $75,000 is 

likely but whether it is permissible under the applicable law.

Meridian, 441 F.3d at 542–43. Contractual or statutory caps on 

damages, Carroll, 658 F.3d at 681, and statutory prohibitions 

on recovering certain categories of damages, Webb, 889 F.3d at 

859, may limit the amount in controversy, but legal certainty 

does not require the existence of a precise, quantifiable limitation on recovery. If the court determines that, as a matter of 

state damages law, it would be impossible to recover more 

than $75,000 based on the plaintiff’s alleged injuries at the 

time of filing or removal, then the court lacks jurisdiction. See 

Del Vecchio v. Conseco, Inc., 230 F.3d 974, 978–80 (7th Cir. 2000) 

(holding that the court lacked jurisdiction because recovering 

the jurisdictional minimum would require a punitive damages award “bordering on the farcical”); cf. Sharp Elecs. Corp. 

v. Copy Plus, Inc., 939 F.2d 513, 515 (7th Cir. 1991) (upholding

jurisdiction because the record did not show that a verdict for

the jurisdictional minimum would be set aside as excessive).
Nos. 22-1844 & 22-2256 13 

III. Analysis

Applying these principles here, Parton and Sykes satisfy 

the amount-in-controversy requirement if, at the time of filing, each alleged in good faith that more than $75,000 was at 

stake in her case. Parker, 845 F.3d at 809. Cook has not disputed that we have jurisdiction, but we have reason to doubt 

the plaintiffs’ jurisdictional allegations. Cf. Page, 2 F.4th at 634. 

Parton and Sykes rely on the master complaint, but their

short-form complaints and case-categorization forms contradict the master complaint’s jurisdictional allegations. Further,

the record shows that based on the injuries Parton and Sykes 

could allege in good faith when they filed their complaints, it 

was legally impossible for either plaintiff to recover more than 

$75,000. We therefore lack jurisdiction. See St. Paul Mercury, 

303 U.S. at 289 (requiring dismissal “if, from the proofs,” it is 

legally certain “that the plaintiff was never entitled to recover” the jurisdictional minimum).

A. The Pleadings 

1. The Master Complaint 

Under the direct-filing procedure, Cook MDL plaintiffs 

can invoke federal subject-matter jurisdiction by incorporating by reference allegations in the master complaint. Parton 

and Sykes argue that they incorporated these allegations in 

good faith and that we have jurisdiction because “their assertions of physical injury, associated pain and emotional distress, and punitive damages satisfied the required amount in 

controversy.”

The master complaint no doubt alleges injuries that place 

more than $75,000 in controversy, including “permanent and 

continuous injuries, pain and suffering, disability and 
14 Nos. 22-1844 & 22-2256

impairment,” “emotional trauma ... that will continue into 

the future,” and the loss of “the[] ability to live a normal life.” 

See Rosenboro v. Kim, 994 F.2d 13, 17–18 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (“[I]n 

applying the St. Paul Mercury test, we have found the presence 

of medical evidence showing that a plaintiff is suffering from 

a continuing or permanent physical impairment to be an important indicator that a substantial unliquidated damages 

award could be legally justified.”). A plaintiff who had suffered these types of injuries could incorporate the master 

complaint’s jurisdictional allegations in good faith and satisfy 

the amount-in-controversy requirement absent any challenge.

See Page, 2 F.4th at 634 (“Given the nature of the allegations, 

and the types of monetary damages implicated by the complaint, we have no reason to question the sufficiency of [the 

plaintiff’s] pleading as to the amount in controversy.” (citation omitted)).

But Parton and Sykes have not suffered the injuries alleged

in the master complaint. Neither plaintiff claims she had experienced pain or any other symptoms when she filed her 

complaint, and each initially categorized her case as an 

asymptomatic perforation. Parton’s and Sykes’s medical records also indicate that they suffered no symptoms before filing their lawsuits. Even after they submitted supplemental 

case-categorization forms describing their IVC perforations as 

symptomatic, the only symptoms they identified were the 

number of filter prongs that had perforated their IVCs and the 

maximum perforation distance. Although “the sum claimed 

by the plaintiff controls if the claim is apparently made in 

good faith,” St. Paul Mercury, 303 U.S. at 288 (footnotes omitted), a plaintiff does not act in good faith when she bases jurisdictional allegations on injuries she has not suffered.
Nos. 22-1844 & 22-2256 15 

2. The Short-Form Complaints

A plaintiff may file directly into the Cook MDL even if the 

master complaint’s allegations do not fully capture her injuries—she may add her own jurisdictional allegations in her 

short-form complaint showing that more than $75,000 is in 

controversy. Unless we have “reason to question the sufficiency” of those allegations, then the short-form complaint’s 

allegations satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement. 

Cf. Page, 2 F.4th at 634 (citation omitted).

Here, though, neither plaintiff included individualized allegations in her short-form complaint or sought to amend her 

short-form complaint after we specifically raised the possibility of such an amendment at oral argument and in our order 

directing the parties to file supplemental memoranda. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1653 (“Defective allegations of jurisdiction may be 

amended, upon terms, in the trial or appellate courts.”). The 

failure to amend the short-form complaints appears to have 

been based on the plaintiffs’ belief that they “cannot cure [a 

jurisdictional] deficiency by ‘amending’ their allegations in 

the” short-form complaints because “the pleadings in this action ... are court-ordered forms.” We agree that Parton and 

Sykes cannot amend the master complaint, which was filed 

by lawyers acting on behalf of all plaintiffs, but we do not see 

why they could not amend their short-form complaints. 

Court-ordered or not, the short-form complaints are individual filings that allege the basis of federal jurisdiction through

incorporation from the master complaint, individualized allegations, or both. With the court’s permission, § 1653 enables 

plaintiffs to amend their jurisdictional allegations. See Grinnell 

Mut. Reissuance Co. v. Haight, 697 F.3d 582, 585 (7th Cir. 2012).

In any event, Parton and Sykes have not asked for leave to 
16 Nos. 22-1844 & 22-2256

amend their short-form complaints, despite our invitation to 

do so. Their pleadings’ only basis for jurisdiction remains the 

master complaint’s allegations.

3. Additional Arguments

The plaintiffs’ additional arguments in support of finding 

that we have jurisdiction are unpersuasive. Parton and Sykes

point out that neither the district court nor any party has 

questioned jurisdiction in this MDL before, but the fact that 

no one previously raised a jurisdictional issue does not relieve 

us of our obligation to ensure we have jurisdiction. See Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 141 (2012) (“When a requirement 

goes to subject-matter jurisdiction, courts are obligated to 

consider sua sponte issues that the parties have disclaimed or 

have not presented.” (citation omitted)); Cothron v. White Castle Sys., Inc., 20 F.4th 1156, 1160 (7th Cir. 2021).4 They also contend that finding an insufficient amount in controversy would 

be tantamount to denying their right to a jury trial, but without subject-matter jurisdiction, a federal court has no power 

to adjudicate a case. See, e.g., McHugh v. IDOT, 55 F.4th 529, 

535 (7th Cir. 2022). A plaintiff cannot present her case to a jury 

in a court without subject-matter jurisdiction.

For its part, Cook argues that because “it is impossible to 

predict” how a jury might value Parton’s and Sykes’s claims, 

we cannot determine to a legal certainty that they fail to meet 

the requisite amount in controversy. But we do not estimate 

jury awards to determine the amount in controversy; we analyze whether governing law would allow an award for the 

4 The plaintiffs’ discussion of state court IVC perforation cases is even 

less relevant because these cases are not subject to the same jurisdictional 

requirements as federal cases.
Nos. 22-1844 & 22-2256 17 

jurisdictional minimum. See Webb, 889 F.3d at 859 n.4. Cook 

also urges us to reach the merits and hold that the plaintiffs’ 

claims are not legally cognizable, which it believes would 

“provide the District Court with the tool it has lacked up to 

this point” to assess the amount in controversy in this MDL.

Convenience, however, does not control our jurisdictional 

analysis. Cf., e.g., Wilkins v. United States, 143 S. Ct. 870, 876

(2023) (“Limits on subject-matter jurisdiction ... have a unique 

potential to disrupt the orderly course of litigation.”).5

* * * 

Parton and Sykes have admitted they did not suffer the injuries alleged in the master complaint, so they cannot rely in 

good faith on those allegations to satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement. Nor do their short-form complaints establish that more than $75,000 is in controversy because they 

lack individualized allegations. Thus, the pleadings here do 

not show that the plaintiffs have properly invoked our diversity jurisdiction.

B. The Record Evidence

The fact that the pleadings do not establish that we have 

jurisdiction does not end our analysis. Unless a party contests 

our jurisdiction, we ordinarily do not look beyond the complaint to assess the amount in controversy. See, e.g., Page, 2 

F.4th at 634. We must do so here, though, because the pleadings alone do not establish the amount in controversy. We

5 Moreover, Cook gets the consequences of a decision on the merits of 

these appeals backward. Because we must assess subject-matter jurisdiction before the merits, see, e.g., Page v. Alliant Credit Union, 52 F.4th 340, 345 

(7th Cir. 2022), if we were to decide these appeals on the merits, we would 

first have to hold that more than $75,000 is in controversy.
18 Nos. 22-1844 & 22-2256

may look to post-filing events, including production of evidence during discovery, to the extent they “clarify what the 

plaintiff was actually seeking” at the beginning of the case. 

Carroll, 658 F.3d at 680–81 (citations omitted); see also Brand 

Servs., L.L.C. v. Irex Corp., 909 F.3d 151, 155 (5th Cir. 2018) (explaining that when the complaint does not make it “facially 

apparent” that more than $75,000 is in controversy, the court 

may look to “summary judgment-type evidence” (quoting St. 

Paul Reinsurance Co. v. Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 (5th Cir. 

1998))).6 That is, we assume for purposes of the jurisdictional 

analysis that Parton and Sykes can prove their cases on the 

merits and ask whether, under the applicable state law, a jury 

could legally award more than $75,000 to each plaintiff based 

on the injuries the evidence supports. See Webb, 889 F.3d at 859 

n.4. If not, it is legally certain that the plaintiffs have not satisfied the amount-in-controversy requirement because they 

were “actually seeking” less than $75,000 when they filed 

their lawsuits. See Carroll, 658 F.3d at 680–81. 

Because Cook does not challenge our jurisdiction, we need 

not perform any jurisdictional fact-finding; instead, we view 

the evidence in the light most favorable to finding jurisdiction. Meridian, 441 F.3d at 543. Parton and Sykes present five 

categories of evidence—medical records, a medical expert’s

declaration, medical journal articles, an FDA communication, 

and Sykes’s declaration—which we address in turn. Since in 

the absence of an amendment, the date of filing is the relevant 

date for purposes of the amount in controversy, Parker, 845 

6 The parties do not ask us to remand for further factual development, 

and we agree that remand is unnecessary. There is a complete summary 

judgment record from which to determine the amount in controversy.
Nos. 22-1844 & 22-2256 19 

F.3d at 809, we examine the evidence to determine what injuries each plaintiff could have alleged in good faith as of the 

date she sued Cook.

Not all of the evidence applies to both plaintiffs, however. 

Sykes’s declaration is not evidence of Parton’s injuries, of 

course, but neither are the journal articles. The articles describe risks of future injuries due to IVC perforation, but only 

Sykes argues that she is at risk of such injuries. Neither Parton’s summary judgment brief nor her appellate briefs argue 

that she is at risk of future injury or discuss the Kentucky law 

relevant to recovering damages for such injuries.7 Therefore, 

we discuss evidence of future harm with respect to Sykes 

only, not Parton.

1. Medical Records 

Medical records show that doctors implanted Parton with 

a Günther Tulip IVC filter in 2012. The procedure was successful, and she did not experience any complications. Similarly, 

Sykes was successfully implanted with a Cook Celect IVC filter in 2013, also with no complications. No evidence in the 

record shows that either plaintiff experienced any pain or 

other symptoms associated with her filter before she underwent a CT scan that revealed the IVC perforation. For Parton, 

the maximum perforation distance was 4.2 mm; for Sykes, 

8.01 mm. The record is silent as to the reason the plaintiffs 

7 Parton’s opening appellate brief asserts that “the perforation has a 

current impact on [her] medical decision-making, as perforation makes 

removal of the device more difficult.” Even assuming this single sentence 

suggests that Parton is at risk of future injury, “[t]his one sentence observation without argument [would be] undeveloped and thus waived.”

United States v. Davis, 29 F.4th 380, 385 n.2 (7th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted).
20 Nos. 22-1844 & 22-2256

received these scans, the scan results do not mention any pain 

or other complications concurrent with the discovery of the 

IVC perforations, and the plaintiffs have not alleged any pain 

or symptoms prior to filing their cases. Thus, these medical 

records show that IVC perforations occurred and support 

whatever damages a jury could award a plaintiff who suffered an asymptomatic perforation, a question we discuss below. But the plaintiffs do not argue that the medical records

themselves are evidence of pain, other symptoms, or risk of 

future injury, and we conclude the records alone do not enable a jury to award any damages beyond those suffered from 

the asymptomatic perforation itself. 

2. Dr. Muehrcke’s Declaration 

Dr. Derek Muehrcke, a cardiothoracic surgeon and expert 

witness for the plaintiffs, completed a declaration providing 

“a medical explanation of what happens when an IVC filter 

punctures or perforates through the IVC, including the body’s 

response to such puncture or perforation.” His declaration 

discusses both the body’s immediate response to and the potential future consequences of an IVC perforation.

Dr. Muehrcke states that “[p]uncture of the IVC wall by an 

IVC filter leads to bleeding, activation of the clotting cascade, 

fibroblast activation, and scar formation.” When an IVC filter 

perforates the vein, “[t]he body’s response to the bleeding is 

to initiate the clotting cascade to prevent the patient from 

bleeding to death.” Unless a patient’s blood is anticoagulated,8 “platelet plugging [will] occur,” and “fibroblast[] reinforcement of the plug will strengthen” it. “This damage and 

8 No evidence suggests that either plaintiff’s blood is anticoagulated.
Nos. 22-1844 & 22-2256 21 

response impair the ability of the IVC to function as intended.”

In addition to the immediate effects of an IVC perforation 

on the body, Dr. Muehrcke states that “the fibroblast response 

leads to scarring over time to heal the acute injury to the IVC 

wall,” which “can make subsequent removal of the IVC filter 

more difficult” and “increases the likelihood that a removing 

physician would need to employ advanced removal techniques.” These removal techniques “have higher complication rates and subject the patient to increased time under anesthesia.” “Perforation can also progress to interact with surrounding [organs]”; the filter can tilt, “compromising [its] clot 

catching ability”; and “[a]bnormal stresses” on the filter “can 

lead to fracture.” 

Missing from Dr. Muehrcke’s declaration is any mention 

of the impacts of the plaintiffs’ IVC perforations on their 

health, aside from his assertion—without explanation or citation to supporting data or analysis—that perforation impairs 

the function of the IVC. He does not opine that Parton or 

Sykes must have experienced pain from their perforations or 

that they necessarily suffer from some specific impairment. 

Nor does Dr. Muehrcke discuss the likelihood or severity of 

the future injuries he mentions. He does not, for example, 

opine about the extent of Sykes’s IVC scarring, whether Sykes 

needs her filter removed at this time, or how likely she is to 

require removal in the future. Dr. Muehrcke also fails to opine 

about the likelihood that advanced removal techniques will 

be required, that complications will arise during removal, that 

Sykes will spend additional time under anesthesia, or that 

Sykes will suffer injury from any of these occurrences.
22 Nos. 22-1844 & 22-2256

We find, viewing Dr. Muehrcke’s declaration in the light 

most favorable to the plaintiffs, that the declaration establishes that Parton’s and Sykes’s blood clotted in response to 

their perforations, that scar tissue formed at the sites of the 

perforations, and that Sykes is at elevated risk of certain complications if she undergoes removal surgery in the future. The

declaration does not, however, allow either plaintiff to allege 

damages based on any particular impairment due to her IVC 

perforation, or allow Sykes to recover damages based on the 

possibility of needing her filter to be removed in the future.

3. Medical Journal Articles 

Sykes cites three medical journal articles that she argues 

demonstrate the future risks associated with IVC perforation. 

For the reasons explained below, these articles at best constitute weak evidence of the risk of future harms.

First, Sykes cites a retrospective analysis of patients implanted with the Günther Tulip filter showing that a perforation of 1 cm beyond the lumen9 was a predictor of failed filter 

retrieval. Ulku Cenk Turba et al., Günther Tulip Filter Retrieval 

Experience: Predictors of Successful Retrieval, 33 CardioVascular 

& Interventional Radiology 732 (2009). Sykes, however, was

implanted with a different model of filter, a Cook Celect filter, 

not a Günther Tulip. Furthermore, her perforation was measured as 8.01 mm beyond the IVC wall, not 1 cm beyond the 

lumen, and she has failed to present any evidence that she 

needs her filter to be retrieved. For this article to constitute 

evidence of a potential injury to Sykes, we would have to 

9 The lumen is the open space inside the IVC, “the cavity of a tubular 

organ or part.” Lumen, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.

com/dictionary/lumen. 
Nos. 22-1844 & 22-2256 23 

make three assumptions: the Günther Tulip and the Cook 

Celect filters are interchangeable with respect to the risk of 

failed retrieval; a perforation of 1 cm beyond the lumen is 

equivalent to a perforation of 8.01 mm beyond the IVC wall; 

and the risk of complications during filter removal is relevant 

to Sykes. Sykes points to no evidence in the record supporting 

these assumptions, and we see none. Even if we made these 

assumptions, all the article would show is that Sykes faces a

10% risk of a retrieval procedure failing. The article found that

removal of nonperforated IVC filters had a 100% success rate, 

while removal of perforated IVC filters had a 90% success 

rate. 

The second article Sykes cites finds that to minimize the 

risk of complications such as IVC perforation, the ideal time 

to remove a retrievable IVC filter is approximately one to two 

months after implantation, provided that the transient risk for 

pulmonary embolism has passed. Jose Pablo Morales et al., 

Decision Analysis of Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters in Patients Without Pulmonary Embolism, 1 J. Vascular Surgery: Venous & Lymphatic Disorders 376 (2013). But Sykes was implanted with her filter a decade ago, and she has already experienced IVC perforation, which is the adverse outcome the 

article associates with not retrieving a filter promptly. If an 

unwarranted delay in removing Sykes’s filter caused her IVC

perforation, then that is a present injury Sykes has already

suffered, not a risk of future injury, and nothing in this article

helps Sykes prove damages from an IVC perforation that she 

has already suffered.

Finally, Sykes discusses a study of the progressive perforation of Cook Celect filters. The study found that once one 

prong of a filter perforates the IVC, it increases the likelihood 
24 Nos. 22-1844 & 22-2256

that other prongs will perforate the IVC, which the study hypothesized was a result of a decrease in the IVC diameter 

caused by the initial perforation. Joshua D. Dowell et al., 

Celect Inferior Vena Cava Wall Strut Perforation Begets Additional 

Strut Perforation, 26 J. Vascular & Interventional Radiology 

1510 (2015). Here, too, there is a poor fit between the article’s 

findings and Sykes’s condition. All four prongs of her filter 

have already perforated her IVC, so she is no longer at risk of 

additional prongs perforating her IVC, and the article does 

not describe any risks of further injury resulting from a fully 

perforated IVC filter. Nor does Sykes produce evidence that 

her IVC diameter has decreased in size or that any decrease 

has impaired her IVC function or otherwise harmed her.

Thus, this study does not show that Sykes is at risk of future 

injury. As with the 2013 article, this article does not support 

additional damages beyond those recoverable for an IVC perforation that has already occurred.

4. The FDA Communication

Sykes also cites a 2014 FDA safety communication recommending that doctors treating “patients with retrievable IVC 

filters consider removing the filter as soon as protection from 

pulmonary embolism is no longer needed.” Removing Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters: FDA Safety Communication, U.S. 

DHHS (2014).10 The communication discusses the possibility 

that leaving a filter inside a patient’s body longer than necessary may be associated with adverse events, such as perforation. The communication does not, however, quantify the 

risks of these adverse events or find that failing to remove 

10 The communication is archived at https://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/medical-device-safety/safety-communications. 
Nos. 22-1844 & 22-2256 25 

filters causes adverse events. Further, Sykes offers no proof

that her filter should have been removed earlier but was not, 

and because she has already had a perforation, this communication does not establish that Sykes is at risk of additional 

injury in the future. Thus, we find that this communication 

does not constitute evidence that Sykes is at risk of future injury.

5. Sykes’s Declaration 

Sykes states that in mid-2019 she began “suffer[ing] constant, excruciating abdominal pain.” She “visited four different hospitals regarding this abdominal pain. Each hospital 

performed tests that ruled out gallbladder issues as the cause 

of the pain.” If her pain had begun before Sykes filed her complaint, she may have been able to rely on it to satisfy the 

amount-in-controversy requirement, but jurisdiction must exist on the date of filing, Parker, 845 F.3d at 809, or the date of a 

voluntary amendment. Rockwell, 549 U.S. at 473–74. Sykes 

filed her complaint in March 2019 and—despite our express 

invitation—never amended her complaint. Because her abdominal pain began in mid-2019, after she filed her complaint,

Sykes’s pain is irrelevant to the amount-in-controversy analysis.

* * * 

Viewed in the light most favorable to finding jurisdiction, 

the record contains evidence showing that both plaintiffs’ IVC 

perforations triggered bleeding, clotting, and scarring, but the 

record lacks evidence that Parton or Sykes experienced pain 

or other symptoms at times relevant to our assessment of the 

amount in controversy. As to Sykes’s risk of future injury, the 

evidence is thin. At best, the 2009 article supports finding that 
26 Nos. 22-1844 & 22-2256

there is a 10% chance that if Sykes undergoes a filter retrieval 

procedure, it will fail. The other evidence—Dr. Muehrcke’s 

testimony and the journal articles—arguably establishes that 

Sykes is at some risk of future injury or complications, but the 

record does not show what those risks are, how likely they are

to occur, or what harm Sykes may suffer if they occur.

C. The Amount in Controversy

Finally, for each plaintiff, we apply the relevant state law 

to the evidence to determine whether a recovery of more than 

$75,000 would be legally impossible. See Webb, 889 F.3d at 859 

& n.4. For purposes of assessing subject-matter jurisdiction, 

we assume without deciding that the plaintiffs’ claims are legally cognizable.11 Then we ask: If a jury awarded more than 

$75,000 in damages for the injuries the evidence supports, 

would a reviewing court uphold the award or set it aside as 

excessive? See Sharp Elecs., 939 F.2d at 515. 

In essence, the evidence shows that at the time Parton and 

Sykes filed their complaints, each could allege in good faith

that she suffered an asymptomatic IVC perforation: her filter 

perforated her IVC by several millimeters, her blood clotted, 

and she developed scar tissue. Parton and Sykes could not, 

however, allege in good faith that they had experienced pain 

or other symptoms, and Sykes could not allege she was at risk 

11 Whether the claims are legally cognizable under state law goes to 

the merits, not jurisdiction. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 

83, 89–90 (1998); see also Thornton v. M7 Aerospace LP, 796 F.3d 757, 765 (7th 

Cir. 2015). Thus, we cannot decide whether these claims are cognizable 

before resolving the jurisdictional issue, but like the district court, we have 

doubts that Kentucky or Texas would recognize a cause of action for an 

asymptomatic IVC perforation. 
Nos. 22-1844 & 22-2256 27 

of future injury. Based on these injuries, we conclude that a 

verdict of over $75,000 for either plaintiff would be excessive. 

Thus, neither plaintiff has satisfied the amount-in-controversy requirement.

1. Parton

Kentucky law, which applies to Parton, uses the “first 

blush” rule to determine whether a damages award is excessive. An award is excessive if “the judicial mind immediately 

is shocked and surprised at the great disproportion of the size 

of the verdict to that which evidence in the case would authorize.” Wilson v. Redken Lab’ys, Inc., 562 S.W.2d 633, 636 (Ky. 

1978).12 Excessiveness depends primarily on the facts of a particular case. Duo-Therm Div., Motor Wheel Corp. v. Sheergrain, 

Inc., 504 S.W.2d 689, 693 (Ky. 1973) (“The ‘first blush’ rule can 

be invoked only when an award is so great that its excessiveness is obvious without looking beyond the essential facts and 

circumstances of the case.” (citation omitted)).

Our review of Kentucky caselaw indicates that whether an 

injury is permanent is an important factor in determining 

whether a large compensatory damages award will be upheld. See, e.g., CSX Transp., Inc. v. Moody, 313 S.W.3d 72, 85 

(Ky. 2010); Morrow v. Stivers, 836 S.W.2d 424, 430–31 (Ky. Ct. 

App. 1992); Boucher v. Paul, 2020 WL 1074672, at *10 (Ky. Ct. 

App. Mar. 6, 2020). Comparing appeals of verdicts in carcrash cases is instructive. Pagliro v. Cleveland found a $5,387.46 

12 The first blush rule is sometimes framed as being based on “passion 

or prejudice,” rather than shock and surprise, see Wilson, 562 S.W.2d at 636; 

Trilogy Healthcare of Fayette I, LLC v. Techau, 605 S.W.3d 60, 72 (Ky. App. 

2019), but both articulations of the rule “seek the same result.” Ronald W. 

Eades, Kentucky Law of Damages § 6:5 (Feb. 2023 update).
28 Nos. 22-1844 & 22-2256

verdict (over $88,000 in today’s dollars13) excessive where the 

plaintiff “no doubt ... suffer[ed] pain and mental anguish,” 

but “there was no proof of probative value of permanency of 

injury or loss of time, or power to earn.” 194 S.W.2d 647, 650–

51 (Ky. Ct. App. 1946). By contrast, Oppenheimer v. Smith upheld a $75,000 verdict (about $465,000 today) where the evidence showed that the plaintiff’s pain could continue for an 

extended period of time and her injuries were associated with 

degenerative conditions. 512 S.W.2d 510, 513 (Ky. Ct. App. 

1974). 

We conclude that a Kentucky court reviewing a verdict of 

more than $75,000 for Parton would consider it “great[ly] disproportion[ate]” to what the evidence could authorize. Wilson, 562 S.W.2d at 636. In Pagliro, an appellate court set aside 

a verdict equivalent to more than $88,000 in today’s dollars 

where the plaintiff had suffered physical injury but had established no risk of permanent injury. 194 S.W.2d at 650–51. Parton, by contrast, has produced no evidence that she experienced pain or complications related to her IVC perforation, 

and she does not seek to recover for future injuries. Given Parton’s asymptomatic IVC perforation and her failure to seek

damages based on a risk of future injury, we conclude that a 

Kentucky court would reverse any verdict for over $75,000. 

Because a verdict for the jurisdictional minimum would be 

set aside as excessive, it is legally certain that when Parton 

filed her complaint, the amount in controversy was no more 

13 Our estimated adjustments for inflation come from the U.S. Bureau 

of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index inflation calculator, available at 

https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm. 
Nos. 22-1844 & 22-2256 29 

than $75,000. Cf. Sharp Elecs., 939 F.2d at 515. Therefore, the 

district court never had subject-matter jurisdiction.

2. Sykes

Under Texas law, which governs Sykes’s case, a court 

must uphold a jury award unless it is legally insufficient. Burbage v. Burbage, 447 S.W.3d 249, 259 (Tex. 2014). Legal insufficiency occurs when “the evidence demonstrates a complete 

absence of a vital fact, or if the evidence offered is no more 

than a scintilla.” Id. (citation omitted). A court “view[s] the 

evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict,” and “must 

uphold the jury verdict if any reasonable version of the evidence supports it.” Anderson v. Durant, 550 S.W.3d 605, 616 

(Tex. 2018) (footnote omitted). Sykes alleges that her IVC perforation has injured her and that she is at risk of future injury.

We begin with future injury. To recover damages based on 

future injury, a plaintiff must prove that it is “likely or reasonably probable” to occur. Francis C. Amendola et al., Texas Jurisprudence 3d: Damages § 12 (Jan. 2023 update); see, e.g., Primoris Energy Servs. Corp. v. Myers, 569 S.W.3d 745, 760–61 (Tex. 

App. 2018) (reviewing an award for future pain). Texas law 

defines reasonable probability in this context as “more likely 

than not.” Parker v. Employers Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. of Wis., 440 

S.W.2d 43, 46–47 (Tex. 1969); see also Mobil Oil Corp. v. Bailey, 

187 S.W.3d 265, 268–69 (Tex. App. 2006). Sykes falls short of 

this standard. The only evidence that quantifies a risk of future injury, the 2009 journal article, at best supports a 10% 

chance that an IVC filter retrieval surgery would be unsuccessful. See Turba et al., supra. And Sykes’s other evidence—

Dr. Muehrcke’s declaration, the other journal articles, and the 

FDA communication—would not permit a reasonable jury to 

find that she is more likely than not to suffer future injury. 
30 Nos. 22-1844 & 22-2256

Therefore, Sykes cannot recover damages for future injury 

under Texas law.

Turning to present injury, we find that no reasonable version of the evidence could support a jury verdict in excess of 

$75,000. See Anderson, 550 S.W.3d at 616. A jury could not 

award damages for pain because “[i]n Texas, only pain consciously suffered and experienced is compensable,” United 

Rentals N. Am., Inc. v. Evans, 608 S.W.3d 449, 465 (Tex. App. 

2020) (citation omitted), and Sykes has produced no evidence 

that she had suffered pain at the time she filed her complaint. 

Nor could a jury award damages based on physical impairment. The record contains no evidence that Sykes’s IVC perforation affected her life or any physical function when she 

filed, and Dr. Muehrcke’s unsupported statement that the 

damage and healing process caused by an IVC perforation 

“impair the ability of the IVC to function as intended” constitutes at most a scintilla of evidence. See Burbage, 447 S.W.3d at 

259. We therefore conclude that a Texas court would set aside 

any verdict of over $75,000 as excessive.

It is legally certain that Sykes could not have recovered the 

jurisdictional minimum when she filed her complaint because 

a verdict for that amount would be set aside as excessive. Cf. 

Sharp Elecs., 939 F.2d at 515. Thus, the amount in controversy 

is not more than $75,000, and the district court lacked subjectmatter jurisdiction. 

IV. Conclusion

Parton and Sykes did not properly invoke federal diversity jurisdiction when they sued Cook because neither plaintiff could allege injuries in good faith that satisfied 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332(a)’s amount-in-controversy requirement. We therefore 
Nos. 22-1844 & 22-2256 31 

vacate the district court’s judgment and remand with instructions to dismiss these cases without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.