In a contract dispute involving an actor and a limo driver who are from State A, and a talk show host from State B, the talk show host moves to dismiss the limo driver's claim for lack of jurisdiction. The court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the limo driver's claim for what reason?

• A. The limo driver’s claim is unrelated to the actor’s claim
• B. Diversity is lacking between the parties
• C. The limo driver's claim arises from the same contract and is so related to the first claim that it forms part of the same case or controversy
• D. The limo driver consented to personal jurisdiction by filing in State B

Answer: (C)

Supreme concept: supplemental jurisdiction lets a federal court hear related state-law claims that share a common nucleus of operative fact with a claim that gave the court original jurisdiction. Here, the limo driver’s claim arises from the same contract as the actor’s claim, and they are so connected that they form part of the same case or controversy. Because the claims are tied to the same transaction, the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1367 to hear the limo driver’s claim alongside the other claim, even if the limo driver’s claim might not independently support federal jurisdiction. This promotes efficiency and avoids fragmenting the dispute into separate lawsuits. The other options don’t fit because one would break the linked, same-contract relationship, one would defeat diversity, and one concerns consent to jurisdiction rather than the relationship between claims under supplemental jurisdiction.