If a claim does not fall under the same transaction, what is the likely outcome in terms of supplemental jurisdiction?

Supplemental jurisdiction allows a federal court to hear additional claims that are related to the original claim, typically under the same transaction or occurrence. When a claim does not arise from the same transaction or occurrence as the original claim, it generally does not fall under the purview of supplemental jurisdiction as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1367. This means that the federal court lacks the authority to hear the unrelated claim, as it does not meet the necessary connection to the original claim that would justify its inclusion in the federal lawsuit.

As a result, the likely outcome for such a claim is that it cannot be included in the federal lawsuit. This aligns with the principle that federal courts aim to maintain jurisdiction over related claims while ensuring that only those claims that share a significant relationship to the main claim are heard in that forum. Thus, the statement accurately reflects the constraints imposed by the rules governing supplemental jurisdiction in the context of unrelated claims.