,MEMORANDUM & ORDER In March 2022, plaintiffs commenced this action alleging the unlawful repossession of a truck that plaintiff Swift Logistics Inc. purchased from defendant M & J Trucks Sales Inc. See generally Compl., Docket Entry (“DE”)1. Defendant moves for summary judgment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the $75,000 amount in controversy threshold has not been met. DE 20. For the reasons set forth below, defendant’s motion is GRANTED. Legal Standards In order to invoke diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332(a)(1), plaintiffs bear the burden of showing a “reasonable probability” that the claim is in excess of the $75,000 amount in controversy. See Tongkook Am., Inc. v. Shipton Sportswear Co., 14 F.3d 781, 784 (2d Cir. 1994). As the Second Circuit has explained: A party invoking the jurisdiction of the federal court has the burden of proving that it appears to a “reasonable probability” that the claim is in excess of the statutory jurisdictional amount. See Moore v. Betit, 511 F.2d 1004, 1006 (2d Cir.1975). This is so because when a party chooses to proceed in federal court, “[the party] knows or should know whether [the] claim is within the statutory requirement as to amount.” St. Paul Mercury, 303 U.S. at 290, 58 S.Ct. at 591. The amount in controversy is determined at the time the action is commenced. See Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. T & D Cottage Auto Parts and Serv., Inc., 705 F.2d 685, 688 (3d Cir.1983). In addition, “[e]vents occurring subsequent to the institution of suit which reduce the amount recoverable below the statutory limit do not oust jurisdiction.” St. Paul Mercury, 303 U.S. at 289-90, 58 S.Ct. at 590-91 (footnote omitted). Tongkook Am., Inc., 14 F.3d at 784. Although “the sum claimed by the plaintiff controls if the claim is apparently made in good faith,” St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288 (1938), “[a] plaintiff’s subjective belief, alone, cannot be the controlling factor where, pre-trial, there is ‘[a] showing that, as a legal certainty, [the] plaintiff cannot recover the jurisdictional amount.’” Tongkook Am., Inc., 14 F.3d at 785 (citation omitted). An action must be dismissed “if the legal impossibility of recovering above the threshold amount is ‘so certain as virtually to negat[e] the plaintiff’s good faith in asserting the claim.’” Peoples Club of Nigeria Int’l, Inc. v. Peoples Club of Nigeria Int’l — New York Branch, Inc., 821 F. App’x 32, 34 (2d Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). “The ‘legal certainty’ inquiry is ‘analyzed by what appears on the face of the complaint.’” Id. at 34. “[A] court may resort to ‘matters outside of the pleadings…to amplify the meaning of the complaint’s allegations.’” Steinberg v. Zebrasky, No. 10 CIV. 4372 (RJS), 2011 WL 2565498, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 14, 2011) (citation omitted). “Where the damages sought are uncertain, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the plaintiff’s pleadings.” Tongkook Am., Inc., 14 F.3d at 785. “In a conversion claim, the measure of damages is the fair market value of the property converted at the time of the conversion.” Stengel v. Black, No. 03 CIV. 0495 (GEL), 2004 WL 1933612, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2004). However, “a judgment for possession in a replevin action generally includes an alternative award of a money judgment in the amount of the chattel’s value at the time of trial…in the event that the chattel can no longer be found in the defendant’s possession.” John Paul Mitchell Sys. v. Quality King Distributors, Inc., 106 F. Supp. 2d 462, 478 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (citation omitted). As the New York Court of Appeals has explained, “in a replevin action, or in an action where restitution or specific performance is allowed, the measure of damages is the value at the time of the trial, on the theory that the true owner had a continuing right to possession of the painting and can be made whole only by return of the item or by payment of its value at the time of trial.” Hicks v. Leslie Feely Fine Art, LLC, No. 1:20-CV-1991(ER), 2021 WL 982298, at *5 n.3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2021) (quoting Will of Rothko, 56 A.D.2d 499, 392 N.Y.S.2d 870, 874 (1st Dep’t 1977)). Finally, “[i]n actions seeking declaratory or injunctive relief, it is well established that the amount in controversy is measured by the value of the object of the litigation.” Correspondent Servs. Corp. v. First Equities Corp. of Fla., 442 F.3d 767, 769 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting Hunt v. Washington State Apple Adver. Com’n, 432 U.S. 333, 347 (1977)). “[T]he amount in controversy is calculated from the plaintiff’s standpoint; the value of the suit’s intended benefit or the value of the right being protected or the injury being averted constitutes the amount in controversy when damages are not requested.” Id. (quoting Kheel v. Port of New York Auth., 457 F.2d 46, 49 (2d Cir. 1972) (internal quotations omitted)). Relevant Facts Plaintiffs, citizens of New York, purchased two trucks (“Truck 1″ and “Truck 2″) from defendant, a New Jersey citizen, in September 2020 and December 2020, respectively. Compl., DE 1,
4-7, 13. In December 2021, defendant sent a notice regarding an alleged default on Truck 2 and erroneously repossessed Truck 1. DE 1,
