Reference no: EM131930332

Patricia, a citizen of New York, ate dinner one night at a restaurant operated in New York by David, a citizen of Connecticut. For dessert, Patricia had an apple pie bought by David from Terry, a New York citizen who is in the business of baking and selling pies to restaurants. Patricia became violently ill shortly thereafter, and tests indicated that the pie contained botulism. After months of hospitalization, Patricia commenced a product liability action in New York federal district court against David. Her claim is for $100,000. David then impleaded Terry as a third-party defendant pursuant to Federal Rule 14, asserting that if he is liable to Patricia, Terry is liable to him. (This represents a correct statement by David of the applicable substantive rule in a product liability action brought against a restaurateur who makes a claim over against his suppliers.) Patricia then made a product liability claim against Terry for $200,000, as allowed by Federal Rule 14. Terry now moves to dismiss Patricia's claim against her for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Also, Thad has now moved to dismiss David's third chlaim against him on similar grounds of lack of subject matter jurisdiction. How should the court decide the two motions?

A. Grant Terry's motion but not That's because the Patricia-v-Terry claim does not fall within the court's supplemental jurisdiction but the David-v-Thad does.

B. It should grant Thad's motion but not Terry's because the the David-v-Thad claim does not fall within the court's supplemental jurisdiction but the Patricia v-vTerry claim does.

C. It should not grant either motion because they both fall within the court's supplemental jurisdiction.

D. It should grant both motions, because neither claims fall within the court's supplemental jurisdiction.