Question

A homeowner, a citizen of State A, hired an electrician, a citizen of State B, to fix the wiring in her basement and hired a gas worker, also a citizen of State B, to install a new gas stove in her kitchen. Unfortunately, the home caught fire and burned down while they were both working on their separate jobs. The homeowner sued the gas worker for negligence in federal court in State A, seeking $100,000. The homeowner promptly served the gas worker, and the gas worker timely filed an answer with the court. One month after filing the answer, the gas worker moved to file and serve a third-party complaint against the electrician, alleging that the electrician was the sole cause of the accident.
Which of the following arguments is most likely to achieve the electrician's goal of dismissal of the third-party complaint?

A. The gas worker's motion for leave to file a third-party complaint is untimely and thus should be denied as a matter of law.

B. The court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the third-party complaint because the electrician's claim and the gas worker's claim do not arise from a common nucleus of operative fact.

C. The gas worker's claim against the electrician is not a proper third-party claim.

D. Dismissing the gas worker's claim will not impede his ability to protect his rights in a separate action.

Answer 1

The answer to ur question is b: the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the third-party complaint because the electrician’s claim and the gas worker’s claim do not arise from common nucleus of operative fact. I hope this helped ;)

Answer 2

It’s B-The court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the third-party complaint because the electrician's claim and the gas worker's claim do not arise from a common nucleus of operative fact =)