Can a court exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims that do not meet diversity jurisdiction requirements?

The court can indeed exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims that do not meet diversity jurisdiction requirements if those claims are related to the original claim. This principle arises from the need to promote judicial efficiency and avoid fragmented litigation. When a party brings a case involving a federal question or claims that fall within the original jurisdiction of the court, any additional claims that share a common nucleus of operative fact with the original claims can be included in the litigation even if they wouldn't be independently subject to federal jurisdiction.

This allows the court to hear all related claims together, as it is often more efficient for the court to resolve claims intertwined with the main issue rather than sending some claims to a different forum or requiring them to be litigated in separate actions. The supplementary jurisdiction is specifically designed to allow for this type of comprehensive resolution of disputes, thereby ensuring the judicial system works cohesively.

The other options do not accurately reflect this process. While there may be specific procedural requirements and considerations, such as whether the claims arise from the same transaction or occurrence, the core principle allowing supplemental jurisdiction remains effective as described.