In a federal antitrust claim, can ∆ bring an unrelated $20k state contract claim if π is from Georgia and ∆ from Delaware?

The answer involves understanding the principles of supplemental jurisdiction and the requirements for bringing additional claims in federal court. In this scenario, the defendant is attempting to bring a state contract claim that is unrelated to the federal antitrust claim against them.

For a claim to be joined under supplemental jurisdiction, it must arise from the same nucleus of operative fact as the federal claim. In this case, the federal antitrust claim and the unrelated $20,000 state contract claim do not share the same transaction or occurrence. The federal claim is based on antitrust laws, while the state claim pertains to a contract issue. Because these two claims address different legal issues and do not stem from a common set of facts, they cannot be properly joined in the same action.

This understanding reinforces the requirement that claims must either arise from the same transaction or occurrence or meet other statutory criteria set forth under supplemental jurisdiction to be heard together in federal court. Thus, the correct option highlights the importance of the relationship between the claims to ensure they can be litigated simultaneously.