Is ∆ from Michigan allowed to bring an unrelated contract claim against π from Ohio in addition to car crash claims?

The correct answer is that the defendant from Michigan is allowed to bring an unrelated contract claim against the plaintiff from Ohio in addition to the car crash claims because Rule 18 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to assert multiple claims against an opposing party regardless of whether the claims are related to each other.

Rule 18 grants a party the ability to join as many claims as they have against an opposing party, and it does not impose a requirement that those claims must arise from the same transaction or occurrence. This means that the defendant can bring forth any valid claims against the plaintiff, including unrelated ones such as contract claims, within the same action.

The other options suggest limitations that do not exist under Rule 18. For instance, the suggestion that the claims would violate Rule 1367 is misplaced since that rule pertains primarily to supplemental jurisdiction concerning additional claims and parties that may not independently satisfy the requirements for federal jurisdiction. It is important to note that while Rule 1367 covers supplemental jurisdiction for related claims, it does not restrict the ability to bring unrelated claims under Rule 18.

Thus, a party has the legal avenue to bring forth multiple claims, enhancing judicial efficiency and potentially resolving disputes in a single proceeding. This flexibility is a fundamental