| Venue: | SCOTUS |
| Facts: | See Kroger v. Omaha Public Power District |
| Posture: | Looks like the court of appeals has allowed the case to proceed in spite of incomplete diversity. |
| Issue: | Is complete diversity required? |
| Holding: | Yes. Reversed. |
| Rule: | Complete diversity. It's what Congress wants. |
| Reasoning: | A plaintiff can't really complain if their claims can't be heard in federal court, since they were the ones who wanted to be in federal court. At least in this case: that's where Kroger sued. The non-federal claim is not ancillary to a federal claim. |
| Dicta: | White, dissenting: It would make sense if we held that § 1332 only requires diversity between the plaintiff and defendants that the plaintiff brings into the case. |