When is a claim usually outside of federal jurisdiction allowed under supplemental jurisdiction?

A claim that is usually outside of federal jurisdiction is indeed permitted under supplemental jurisdiction when it arises from the same nucleus of operative fact as the original claim. This principle is rooted in the desire to promote judicial efficiency by allowing related claims to be resolved together in one legal action, rather than forcing parties to litigate separate claims in different courts.

Supplemental jurisdiction comes into play particularly when the original claim falls within the federal court's jurisdiction, and the additional claim, which may not independently satisfy federal jurisdictional requirements, is closely tied to that original claim. This ensures that the federal court can resolve all matters arising from a single legal dispute, streamlining the judicial process and avoiding potentially duplicative litigation.

Claims that involve a federal question or emerge from bankruptcy issues usually have their own distinct jurisdictional bases and do not rely on the principles of supplemental jurisdiction in the same way. Furthermore, while party agreement can be influential in many procedural aspects of litigation, it does not grant the court jurisdiction; it is the relationship between the claims themselves that primarily dictates the appropriateness of supplemental jurisdiction.