What defines a "related claim" for supplemental jurisdiction?

A "related claim" for supplemental jurisdiction is defined as a claim that arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the original claim. This concept is rooted in the idea that the judicial system benefits from resolving claims that are closely connected, thereby promoting efficiency and consistency in legal proceedings. When multiple claims share a common nucleus of operative fact, allowing them to be adjudicated together prevents piecemeal litigation and ensures that all related issues can be determined in a single action.

For instance, if a plaintiff files a lawsuit for breach of contract and also has a related tort claim that stems from the same facts, such as fraudulent inducement, the tort claim can be brought under supplemental jurisdiction, as it arises from the same transaction - the formation and execution of the contract. Thus, choosing a claim that arises from the same transaction or occurrence emphasizes the interconnectedness of the claims, fitting squarely within the framework of supplemental jurisdiction.