the United States Constitution. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Defendant Anderson does not contend that this court lacks jurisdiction over the complaint or that the contentions raised in the cross-claim are not related to the claims raised in the underlying complaint. Defendant Anderson only argues that because the parties involved in the cross claim are all Arizona residents, no diversity jurisdiction exists over the cross claim. Defendant Anderson filed no reply once defendant Chick pointed out, in its response, the applicability of the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction. Based upon the statute, this Court concludes that it has jurisdiction to hear defendant Chick’s cross claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). See, United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966) (<HOLDING>); See also, 1 Moore’s Federal Practice, para.
holding that a federal court may adjudicate claims for which there is no independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction if the nonjurisdictional claims are related to other claims for which the does have jurisdiction holding the federal tort claims act did not permit exercise of pendant jurisdiction over additional parties as to which no basis for federal jurisdiction existed holding that the court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate any claims whatsoever under the federal criminal code holding that the court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction over claims arising from the violation of a criminal statute holding that the bankruptcy courts jurisdiction to adjudicate common law claims violated article iii without deciding the claims