of but one nondiverse party divests the district court of original jurisdiction over the entire action.” In re Olympic Mills Corp., 477 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir.2007) (citing Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 267, 2 L.Ed. 435 (1806)). Generally, jurisdiction is determined at the time the lawsuit is filed. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that “if jurisdic tion exists at the time any action is commenced, such jurisdiction may not be divested by subsequent events.” Freeport-McMoRan, Inc. v. KN Energy, Inc., 498 U.S. 426, 428, 111 S.Ct. 858, 112 L.Ed.2d 951 (1991). There are exceptions, however: the postfiling introduction of a nondiverse party may, in certain circumstances, defeat diversity jurisdiction. See, e.g., Brown v. Pac. Life Ins. Co., 462 F.3d 384, 394 (5th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. Prestige Title,
holding that a postfiling nondiverse party under rule 19a may destroy subjectmatter jurisdiction if the party is deemed indispensable holding that personal jurisdiction over a party is proper if the party has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum recognizing that the burden is on a party making a rule 12b7 motion to establish that missing parties are necessary or indispensable to the action holding father waived claim that alleged de facto custodian should have been named as party in child support proceeding by failing to move to join party or to dismiss for lack of an indispensable party holding that the party prevailing on the significant issues in the litigation is the party that should be considered the prevailing party for attorneys fees