The following excerpt is from Briarpatch Ltd. v. Phoenix Pictures, Inc., 373 F.3d 296 (2nd Cir. 2004):
When reviewing the district court's assumption of subject matter jurisdiction, we accept its findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous, while examining questions of law de novo. See McGinty v. New York, 251 F.3d 84, 90 (2d Cir.2001). There are two possible grounds on which the district court's jurisdiction might have been anchored in this case: diversity of citizenship and copyright law. If any of plaintiffs' claims can be based on these jurisdictional grounds, their other claims possibly may be based on supplemental jurisdiction.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.