With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and the later developments arising from the contact with Bob Hughes’s employer by Region VII Agency’s lawyers “comprise but one case.” Although section 1367(a) permits the joinder of co-plaintiffs whose claims are related and form the same case and controversy, see Monroe v. Brown, 256 F.Supp.2d 1292 (D.Ala.2003) (finding supplemental jurisdiction over co-plaintiff husband’s claims for loss of consortium where the court had original jurisdiction over wife’s personal injury claim), when a co-plaintiff seeks to join a lawsuit with a freestanding, independent claim that is based on new legal theories and additional, unrelated facts, he must establish an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction. See Siegel v. Consol. Edison, Inc., 318 F.Supp.2d 176, 178-79 (S.D.N.Y.2004) (<HOLDING>). Bob Hughes’s claims are separate from those

A: holding that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over a commonlaw wrongful discharge claim
B: holding that court had no supplemental jurisdiction over claim by shareholder for breach of merger agreement that was the subject of the dispute between the merger partners over which the district court had subject matter jurisdiction
C: holding that the superior court had no jurisdiction over the division of marital property when the district court had properly invoked jurisdiction over the property
D: holding that the court had no jurisdiction over an alleged breach of a plea agreement
B.