even by consent, is not permissible. Cf. Wharton-Thomas v. United States, 721 F.2d 922, 930 (3d Cir.1983) (discussing constraints on power of Congress to allow non-article III adjudicators to handle cases committed to federal courts). Accordingly, we will reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. 1 . Defendant Ram Construction Company is now in bankruptcy. Plaintiffs properly sought and obtained leave from the automatic stay before filing this appeal. 2 . Plaintiffs did not bring any action against the defendant officers under ERISA. Thus, it appears that the defendant officers are before the federal court on the basis of claims lodged under state law. But cf. Aldinger v. Howard, 427 U.S. 1, 96 S.Ct. 2413, 49 L.Ed.2d 276 (1976) (<HOLDING>). 3 . We add that the facts of the case here
holding no pendent party jurisdiction over nondiverse defendants when underlying suit brought under 42 usc  1983 holding the johnson act forbade federal court jurisdiction in a class action suit brought under 42 usc  1983 holding that a state is not a person under 42 usc  1983 holding that 42 usc  1396aa13a is enforceable in a suit under  1983 holding that the state law of collateral estoppel applies in civil rights actions brought under 42 usc  1983