premised on the idea that “there is no justification for providing a federal forum where there are non-diverse parties on both sides of the lawsuit.” Exxon, 545 U.S. at 562, 125 S.Ct. 2611. T F.Supp.2d 318, 322 (D.Conn.2007) (finding that the inclusion of a state agency as a defendant "destroy[ed] complete diversity”); Tomback v. UnumProvident Corp., No. 05 Civ. 3157, 2005 WL 2596449, at *3 (N.D.Cal. Oct. 13, 2005) (finding no diversity jurisdiction due to inclusion of the California Commissioner of Insurance in a suit against diverse insurers); Batton v. Georgia Gulf 261 F.Supp.2d 575, 583 (M.D.La.2003) (finding that "[njowhere is there any provision allowing diversity jurisdiction where a non-citizen state is a party”); Jakoubek v. Fortis Benefits Ins. Co., 3 25 So.2d 880, 881 (1946) (<HOLDING>)). The Florida District Court relied on the
holding that the federal action at issue must be authorized holding that in context of patent claim at issue if means only if recognizing that although there was no property in a dead body at common law  the one whose duty it is to care for the body of the deceased is entitled to possession of the body as it is when death comes and that it is an actionable wrong for another to interfere with that right by withholding the body or mutilating it in any way recognizing fiduciary exception in the erisa context recognizing fsba as corporate body in context of whether it was authorized to issue refunding bonds