Which statement best describes supplemental jurisdiction over a crossclaim under Rule 14?

Which statement best describes supplemental jurisdiction over a crossclaim under Rule 14?

• A. It may be heard only if it shares a nucleus of operative facts with the main claim.
• B. It always can be heard regardless of nucleus.
• C. It can be heard under supplemental jurisdiction if it arises from the same nucleus of operative facts.
• D. It cannot be heard under supplemental jurisdiction.

Answer: (C)

Supplemental jurisdiction lets a court hear related claims in the same action when they arise from the same set of facts as the main claim. For a crossclaim under Rule 14, the court may exercise that authority if the crossclaim arises out of the same nucleus of operative facts as the main claim. This keeps related issues together in one suit and avoids piecemeal litigation. If the crossclaim involves different facts, it wouldn’t fall under supplemental jurisdiction unless there’s another independent basis for jurisdiction.

Supplemental jurisdiction lets a court hear related claims in the same action when they arise from the same set of facts as the main claim. For a crossclaim under Rule 14, the court may exercise that authority if the crossclaim arises out of the same nucleus of operative facts as the main claim. This keeps related issues together in one suit and avoids piecemeal litigation. If the crossclaim involves different facts, it wouldn’t fall under supplemental jurisdiction unless there’s another independent basis for jurisdiction.