Yellow Freight Sys., Inc. v. Adams Brush Mfg. Co., No. CIV-97-2310 EEO, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13491, at *9 (D. Kan. Aug. 5, 1997). See Foss v. United States, 705 F. Supp. 537, 538 (D.N.M. 1989) (Mechem, J.). Finally, it must be noted that the expansion of jurisdiction that 28 U.S.C. § 1441(f) provides may be limited to cases removed under 28 U.S.C. § 1441.

" Id. As if this statement of its purpose was not clear enough, the Report concluded by hammering one more nail into the coffin of the derivative jurisdiction doctrine: "[§ 1441(e)] eliminates this arcane rule, so wasteful to finite judicial resources." Id. This Court here notes that this paragraph which principally discusses the legislative history of 1441(e) is essentially taken from Foss v. U.S., 705 F. Supp. 537, 538 (D.N.M. 1989), wherein a Postal Service patron and husband brought an action against the United States in state court seeking recovery for injuries sustained on June 3, 1985 when the patron tripped over a concrete parking barrier after exiting from the United States Post Office located in a shopping center in Aztec, New Mexico and fell to the ground, injuring her knee. She and her husband on October 8, 1986 filed an administrative claim for damages with the United States Postal Service which took no action on the claim for six months.