Disagreeing with the decision reached by the Supreme Court in Finley v. United States[5] regarding pendent-party jurisdiction, Congress enacted 28 U.S.C.

The last sentence of § 1367(a) makes it clear that the grant of supplemental jurisdiction extends to claims involving joinder or intervention of additional parties.

If the answer is no, § 1367(a) is inapplicable and, in light of our holdings in Clark and Zahn, the district court has no statutory basis for exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the additional claims.

Carefully examining the legislative history of the relevant portion of the statute, the dissenters concluded that a more narrow reading was preferable to the analysis of the majority.

[8] Justice Ginsburg concluded that the ambiguities of the statute as enacted should be read to preserve continuity and precedent, in so far as that construction is possible.

In applying that standard, she concluded that Congress did not intend, nor did the language they adopted enact, an expansive grant of additional jurisdiction such that joined parties should no longer have to independently meet ALL requirements of diversity jurisdiction, including the individual consideration of the amount-in-controversy requirement.