With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Supreme Court held that although the Constitution allows for pendent party jurisdiction, Congress had not conferred pendent jurisdiction through the Federal Tort Claims Act. Id. at 555, 109 S.Ct. 2003. In response, the Federal Court Study Committee recommended Congress to supersede Finley by confer ring pendent party jurisdiction to conserve judicial economy by providing a single forum for matters arising out of the same transaction or occurrence. Federal Court Study Committee Report (April 2, 1990). Congress adopted the recommendation, and 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) expressly provides that “supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties.” Id. See also Musson Theatrical Inc. v. Federal Ex. Corp., 89 F.3d 1244, 1254 (6th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). In my orders of joinder, I joined the

A: recognizing that the supplemental jurisdiction statute 28 usc  1367a provides congressional authorization for what was formerly known as pendent party jurisdiction
B: holding that where jurisdiction was based on 28 usc  2201 venue was determined as per 28 usc  1391
C: recognizing that finley had been superseded by 28 usc  1367a
D: holding that under 28 usc  1404a might have been brought requirement was not satisfied by defendants consent to jurisdiction
C.