Doesn't adding the State A manufacturer destroy diversity? Please explain why adding the manufacturer is ok under supplemental jurisdiction, even though it seems to destroy diversity.

Question A cyclist, a citizen of State A, sued a State B corporation with its principal place of business in State C. The complaint, filed in State C federal court, asserted a single claim under State C products liability law, alleging that the cyclist suffered in excess of $85,000 in damage when the wheel on his bicycle detached in transit due to a defect in the bicycle's rear axle. The corporation purchased its rear axles from a State A manufacturer. Concerned that any defects in the rear axle may have been the fault of the manufacturer, the corporation wants the manufacturer to be part of the lawsuit. Which action should the corporation take to add the manufacturer as a party? A Move to join the manufacturer as a required party. Serve a summons and complaint on the manufacturer as a third-party defendant. C Join the manufacturer as a defendant under the federal interpleader statute. D Do nothing, because joining the manufacturer would destroy diversity