A gasoline dealer brought a diversity action in State B federal court against a distributor for willfully and knowingly overcharging for the price of fuel over a two-year period. The complaint alleged damages in the amount of $60,000 plus an additional $30,000 for punitive damages as allowed by state law. The dealer is a citizen of State A and the distributor was incorporated and had its principal place of business in State B. A second dealer, a citizen of State B, seeks to join a claim for $40,000 against the distributor in the same action based on the identical issue of overcharging for the price of fuel purchased over a similar time period. The distributor seeks to dismiss both claims due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. How should the federal court proceed?
A) Dismiss both claims because federal courts do not permit punitive damage claims in reaching the jurisdictional amount, and because the second dealer's action fails to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement.
B) Grant the motion to the second dealer because complete diversity is lacking, but allow the first dealer's case to proceed.
C) Deny the motion because multiple plaintiffs may aggregate claims arising