What can be concluded about the jurisdictional relationship between original and third-party claims?

The conclusion that both original and third-party claims must arise from the same incident for jurisdiction is rooted in the principles of supplemental jurisdiction. When a defendant brings a third-party claim against another party, the connection between this claim and the original claim is crucial. According to the rules governing supplemental jurisdiction, particularly 28 U.S.C. § 1367, a third-party claim can be heard in conjunction with an original claim if they share a common nucleus of operative fact. This ensures judicial efficiency and prevents the need for separate trials.

In contrast, the other options do not adequately capture the nuanced relationship necessary for establishing jurisdiction in cases that involve multiple claims. For instance, the assertion that third-party claims do not affect original claims' jurisdiction overlooks how closely related claims can enhance overall jurisdiction through supplemental means. The idea that original claims negate third-party claims' jurisdiction is inaccurate because it fails to recognize that original claims can support the jurisdiction of related third-party claims if they meet the criteria of a common fact pattern. Lastly, suggesting that both must be federally based for jurisdiction does not align with the concept of supplemental jurisdiction, which allows for claims based on state law, provided they are related to the original federal claim.

Thus, the requirement that both claims arise from the