The petitioner filed a tort action against San Diego Gas and Electric Company and the city of San Diego after her family died in a plane crash caused by electric transmission lines. Later, she discovered that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was responsible for the runway lights and filed a complaint against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for negligence in the FAA's operation and maintenance of the runway lights and air traffic control functions. She then moved to amend the complaint to include claims against the original state-court defendants, which had no independent basis for federal jurisdiction. The District Court granted her motion and asserted "pendent" jurisdiction under Mine Workers v. Gibbs, finding that trying the actions together would favor judicial economy and efficiency. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit summarily reversed, rejecting pendent-party jurisdiction under the FTCA. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a split among the Circuits on whether the FTCA permits an assertion of pendent jurisdiction over additional parties. The Court must determine whether the FTCA allows for pendent-party jurisdiction over additional parties.

The dissenting opinion in the case argues that the Court's decision ignores established legal principles and previous rulings. The Federal courts have the power to decide cases within specified categories, and the District Court has jurisdiction over civil actions against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Rule 14(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a defendant to implead joint tortfeasors, even in cases involving the FTCA. The petitioner is authorized to assert additional claims against the nonfederal defendants under Rule 20(a) of the Federal Rules. Pendent jurisdiction allows a federal court to hear a state claim that arises from a common nucleus of operative fact with a federal claim that invokes subject matter jurisdiction. However, pendent-party jurisdiction should not be exercised if Congress has expressly or by implication negated its existence in the statute granting subject-matter jurisdiction over the particular claim before the Court. Congress may withdraw or deny pendent jurisdiction over particular claims or parties. The circumstances for the exercise of pendent party jurisdiction are powerful when federal jurisdiction over claims is exclusive, making a federal court the only one where a complete disposition of federal and related state claims could be rendered.