In which situation might a federal court exercise jurisdiction over a claim that normally wouldn't qualify?

The correct choice highlights the principle of supplemental jurisdiction under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A federal court can exercise jurisdiction over a claim that ordinarily would not qualify if it is closely related to another claim that is already under the court's original jurisdiction. This is often seen in situations where multiple claims arise from the same set of facts. For example, if a federal court has jurisdiction over a breach of contract case and a defendant raises a related state law tort claim that stems from the same facts, the court may allow the tort claim to proceed under its supplemental jurisdiction. This promotes judicial efficiency and prevents the fragmentation of litigation by allowing the court to resolve related issues in a single proceeding.

The other options do not typically provide a basis for exercising jurisdiction in this manner. International treaties might involve specific statutes and additional complexities but don't necessarily impact the typical jurisdictional rules on their own. A party advocating for jurisdiction does not alter the etiology of jurisdiction itself; it's the facts and law that matter. Lastly, the absence or presence of local counsel relates more to issues of legal representation and procedural considerations rather than directly providing a basis for the court’s jurisdiction.