Civ Pro II:

"The specific purpose of the complete diversity rule explains both why we have not adopted Gibbs' expansive interpretive approach to this aspect of the jurisdictional statute and why Gibbs does not undermine the complete diversity rule.  In order for a federal court to invoke supplemental jurisdiction under Gibbs, it must first have original jurisdiction over at least one claim in the action.  Incomplete diversity destroys original jurisdiction with respect to all claims, so there is nothing to which supplemental jurisdiction can adhere."

Ugh.

How about:  "Rejecting that argument, the Court held, 'on the question of removal, we have not to consider more than whether there was a real intention to get a joint judgment, and whether there was a colorable ground for it...as the record stood when the removal was denied.  If there is a joint liability, he has an absolute right to enforce it, whatever the reason that makes him with to assert the right.  Hence, the fact that the company is rich and Barrett is poor does not affect the case.'" 

Uh, yeah, I see how they got to that...Not.

Crappy crappy day.  I can't wait till 3:30.