What is true regarding the original claim's jurisdiction status when added claims are made?

The assertion that the original claim secures overall jurisdiction is accurate. When a party initiates a lawsuit, the court's jurisdiction is initially established based on the original claim. This jurisdiction can be derived from either subject matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction.

When additional claims are added—whether through amendments or counterclaims—the court typically retains jurisdiction over these new claims as long as they are related to the original claim and fall under supplemental jurisdiction. Supplemental jurisdiction enables the court to hear additional claims that arise from the same facts or circumstances as the original claim, enhancing judicial efficiency and ensuring all related matters can be resolved in one forum.

Thus, the presence of a valid original claim allows the court to maintain jurisdiction over all related claims, affirming that the original claim indeed secures overall jurisdiction. This concept reinforces the purpose of joinder and supplemental jurisdiction in preventing fragmented litigation and facilitating comprehensive adjudication.

The other options, while they present different aspects of jurisdiction, do not accurately capture the relationship between the original claim and the added claims. For instance, new claims may rely on the original claim's jurisdiction rather than needing to establish independent jurisdiction, which highlights the importance of the original claim in defining the scope of the court's authority.