Does a $150k unrelated state contract claim brought by ∆ from Delaware in a federal antitrust case establish federal jurisdiction?

The correct answer highlights that federal jurisdiction can potentially be established based on an independent basis, which refers to diversity jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction. For example, if the unrelated state contract claim meets the amount in controversy requirement of $75,000 and involves parties from different states, it can be a basis for diversity jurisdiction. This means that even though the claim is unrelated to the primary federal antitrust case, if the parties are citizens of different states and the amount exceeds the threshold, federal courts can assert jurisdiction over that claim based on diversity.

In addition, the claim might also establish jurisdiction if it arises under federal law or if there are supplemental jurisdiction considerations, with regard to how various claims interrelate. The specifics of the case play a critical role in determining whether the independent basis for federal jurisdiction exists, depending on the factual and jurisdictional nuances of the claims involved.

Other options reflect misunderstandings of how federal jurisdiction works with related and unrelated claims. For example, the assertion that the claim is unrelated directly limits the interpretation of jurisdiction without considering the possibility of an independent basis. Similarly, the notion that a counterclaim might affect jurisdiction does not necessarily hold true for establishing an original claim's jurisdiction. Consent by both parties could be relevant in a different context