5. Can the value of a compulsory counterclaim be considered in determining whether the action meets the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction? See p. 282, supra. In Spectacor Management Group v. Brown, 131 F.3d 120, 121 (3d Cir. 1997), certiorari denied 523 U.S. 1120, 118 S.Ct. 1799, 140 L Ed.2d 939 (1998), defendant elected not to file a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, but instead asserted a compulsory counterclaim in response to the complaint. The Third Circuit held that the amount of that counterclaim should be considered in determining whether the amount-in-controversy threshold had been met. Is it proper to take defendant’s risk as the jurisdictional measure? For the view that it is not, see Al-Cast Mold & Pattern, Inc. v. Perception, Inc., 52 F.Supp.2d 1081 (D. Minn.

1999). May the court exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a compulsory counterclaim that does not meet the amount-in-controversy requirement?