What might happen if a claim dominates the original claims in a case?

When a claim dominates the original claims in a case, the court may dismiss the request for supplemental jurisdiction. This occurs particularly when the dominant claim does not meet the criteria for the original jurisdiction of the federal court or if it poses significant jurisdictional issues. For example, if the dominant claim is related to a different set of facts or parties that fall under a different jurisdictional basis compared to the original claims, the court might determine that it is more appropriate to dismiss the supplemental claims rather than complicate the original case with these unrelated issues.

In instances where the dominant claim overwhelms the original claims, it could lead to complexities that make it impractical for the court to retain jurisdiction over all claims. Hence, the court may exercise its discretion to dismiss the request for supplemental jurisdiction, focusing instead on the claims that fall within its jurisdictional scope.

This understanding underscores the relationship between claims in concurrent jurisdiction and illustrates the court's obligations to maintain judicial efficiency and proper jurisdictional boundaries. While other options may reflect different procedural outcomes, when a claim predominates, the straightforward approach is often to limit the court's focus to properly jurisdictional claims.