What does it mean for a claim to be "related" under supplemental jurisdiction?

A claim is considered "related" under supplemental jurisdiction when it arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the main claim. This principle ensures that all claims stemming from a common set of facts can be heard together in order to promote judicial efficiency and prevent inconsistent verdicts. The rationale behind this is that the claims are interdependent; resolving them in a single proceeding allows for a more comprehensive understanding of the issues and a fairer resolution overall.

Other criteria, such as being against the same party or involving the same legal issue, do not directly influence the determination of whether claims are related for the purpose of supplemental jurisdiction. While such factors might play a role in the litigation process or the overall strategy of the case, they do not satisfy the specific requirement of arising from the same transaction or occurrence. Similarly, claims having been filed simultaneously does not establish any jurisdictional relationship between them.