What are the two major types of claims that can invoke supplemental jurisdiction?

The correct answer involves claims that arise from the same case or controversy, or those that share a common nucleus of operative fact. This principle is crucial in federal civil procedure because it establishes the parameters for when a federal court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over additional claims that are not independently subject to the court's original jurisdiction, such as diversity or federal question jurisdiction.

Supplemental jurisdiction, as articulated in 28 U.S.C. § 1367, allows for the inclusion of claims that are closely related to the original claim, fostering judicial efficiency and preventing fragmented litigation. When multiple claims share a common underlying issue or fact pattern, it makes sense to resolve them together in one judicial forum, thus serving both parties' interests and conserving judicial resources.

In contrast, options that suggest federal questions or state law claims alone, unrelated claims, or mere diversity among parties do not accurately capture the essence of supplemental jurisdiction. Specifically, claims must be related to the original jurisdictional claim to qualify for supplemental jurisdiction; simply having a federal question or differing state citizenship does not satisfy the necessary connection.