What type of jurisdiction applies when π (Tennessee) sues ∆ (Idaho) and ∆ impleads T (Florida) with respect to diversity of citizenship?

Diversity jurisdiction applies in this scenario because the case involves parties from different states. The plaintiff is from Tennessee, the defendant is from Idaho, and the third party (T) that the defendant wishes to implead is from Florida. For a federal court to have diversity jurisdiction, there must be an actual conflict of citizenship, which is present in this case since the parties are from three different states.

This jurisdiction type allows the matter to be heard in federal court, provided that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and there is complete diversity, meaning no plaintiff shares a state of citizenship with any defendant. In this instance, because the primary parties involved (plaintiff and defendant) are citizens of different states, and because the rule allows for impleading a third party with a different citizenship as well, the correct choice here is diversity jurisdiction.

While federal question jurisdiction relates to issues arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties, it is not applicable since this question does not mention any federal statutory or constitutional issues. Supplemental jurisdiction, on the other hand, allows a federal court to hear additional claims closely related to the original jurisdiction claims but does not apply to the primary question of jurisdiction regarding the parties. Personal jurisdiction concerns the court's authority over