Paul, a citizen of Illinois, brings a multimillion dollar diversity action for wrongful death in the proper U.S. District Court against his wife's employer, G.E. Construction Company, a Washington corporation. He alleges that G.E. negligently allowed the scaffolding to collapse while his wife was walking beneath it. G.E. impleads the manufacturer of the scaffolding, Remington, alleging that it would have a right to indemnity from Remington as a consequence of the latter's negligent manufacture of the equipment in question. Remington is an Idaho corporation. Paul was granted leave to file an amended complaint alleging negligent manufacture against Remington. Thereafter, Remington moved to dismiss Paul's action against it for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Which of the following statements is correct? Question 5Select one: a. The motion should be denied because of the pendent jurisdiction doctrine. b. The motion should be denied because of the ancillary jurisdiction doctrine. c. The motion should be granted because diversity is lacking. d. The motion should be granted because there is diversity between Paul and G.E