Whether the district court exceeded its subject-matter jurisdiction when exercising ancillary supplemental jurisdiction without applying tests for common nucleus of operative fact

1. Whether the district court had exceeded its subject-matter jurisdiction when it exercised ancillary supplemental jurisdiction over a thirdparty complaint without stating or applying any tests in determining the common nucleus of operative fact? 2. Whether the test for common nucleus of operative fact for ancillary jurisdiction is the same as the pendent jurisdiction test stated in Gibbs or the ancillary jurisdiction test articulated in Kroger, Kokkonen , or Peacock? 3. Has the codification of § 1367 eviscerated a hundred years of case law and mandates that the courts start from scratch? 4. Whether the district court had exceeded its subject-matter jurisdiction when supplemental jurisdiction was based on Appellee’s RICO claim that lacked standing on the face of complaint and by applying a loose factual test when finding a common nucleus? 5. Whether the district court may deny a Rule 60 motion by ignoring the submitted declarations that are relevant and material to the issues and failing to consider mistakes of law or fact by the district judge? See Kemp v. United States , 596 U.S. 528, 534-535 (2022) 6. Whether the Second Circuit committed an error in denying review under its mandamus power when the issue is whether the district court has exceeded its federal jurisdiction in applying no test to exercise ancillary jurisdiction? ii 7. Whether the Second Circuit committed error in denying review under the collateral order doctrine when the issue is whether the district court has exceeded its federal jurisdiction in applying no test to exercise ancillary jurisdiction? 8. Whether the Second Circuit committed an error in denying a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, a motion for a stay of the mandate, and issuing a mandate on the same day that it denied the motion to stay the mandate?