8. Is removal proper?

D is correct. Although the second rancher's claim does not meet the amount-in-controversy minimum for federal diversity jurisdiction, supplemental jurisdiction authorizes jurisdiction over claims that otherwise would not meet the amount-in-controversy requirement. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367; Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, 545 U.S. 546 (2005). To establish supplemental jurisdiction, the insufficient claims must be so related to claims in the action that are within the court's original jurisdiction that they form part of the «same case or controversy.» Here, both ranchers' claims arise from water runoff caused by the same construction on the neighboring property and thus meet that standard.

A is incorrect. The two rancher plaintiffs are not diverse, but complete diversity is not required between parties aligned in interest, only those opposed in interest. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1); Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. 267 (1806). There is complete diversity between the ranchers and the developer. Thus, the fact that the two ranchers are both citizens of State A is irrelevant.

B is incorrect. The second rancher's $50,000 claim qualifies for supplemental jurisdiction because it arises from the same controversy over the construction on the neighboring property as the first rancher's $250,000 claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367; Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, 545 U.S. 546 (2005). Thus, the fact that the second rancher's claim does not satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement does not make removal improper.

C is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct result with incorrect legal reasoning. The ranchers' tort claim arises under state law. For federal question jurisdiction to exist, however, the underlying claim for relief must arise under federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Federal question jurisdiction does not exist merely because federal law is cited solely for the purpose of calculating damages.