Which type of jurisdiction allows a court to hear claims closely related to a main claim?

Supplemental jurisdiction is the correct choice because it specifically allows a court to hear claims that are related to a main claim and that would not independently qualify for federal jurisdiction. This doctrine is rooted in judicial efficiency and the idea that parties should not have to litigate related claims in separate forums.

In practice, supplemental jurisdiction is often invoked when a plaintiff has an original claim that is within the court's jurisdiction (for example, a federal question or diversity jurisdiction) and seeks to add additional claims that arise from the same set of facts as the original claim. This prevents the wasteful duplication of resources and promotes judicial economy.

The other types of jurisdiction do not serve this function. Complete jurisdiction is not a recognized legal term in the context of jurisdiction. General jurisdiction refers to a court's authority to hear any claim against a defendant, which is usually based on the defendant’s substantial contacts with the jurisdiction, rather than on the relatedness of claims. Limited jurisdiction, on the other hand, restricts a court’s power to hear specific types of cases, thus it is not suitable for the purpose of hearing closely related claims.