28 U.S.C. § 1331

Federal-question jurisdiction must be established from the face of the operative complaint.

Brown · filed 2025-09-26

But the Court can only consider the face of Plaintiffs’ operative complaint in evaluating their invocation of federal question jurisdiction, and the FAC raises no Fourteenth Amendment claim, nor facts that would give rise to such a claim.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when an ambiguous complaint can be read as asserting only state-law claims.

Wilson v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. · filed 2025-06-05

In essence, notwithstanding the complaint’s initial appearance, Wilson surfaces a colorable latent ambiguity that makes a finding of no jurisdiction, and therefore remand, appropriate.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff’s petition raises no federal question and the respondent’s due process claim rests on alleged violations of state law and rules.

Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Pisner · filed 2024-12-19

A careful reading of the petition shows that the Plaintiff/Petitioner has not raised a separate federal question in this case that would fall within the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. ... Given this, the Defendant/Respondent’s claim that he was denied due process, based on alleged violations of state law and rules and the state Courts’ decisions, does not create a federal question.

Section 1331 jurisdiction cannot rest on proposed federal claims that were never added to the complaint.

Bearbones, Inc. v. Peerless Indemnity Insurance · filed 2019-08-21

But the appellants have never asserted federal question jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and in any event, the magistrate judge denied the appellants' motion to supplement the complaint. See Bearbones, Inc. v. Peerless Indem. Ins. Co., No. 15-30017, 2016 WL 5928799, at *10 (D. Mass. Oct. 11, 2016). Federal subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be premised on claims that were never made part of the case.

Section 1331 jurisdiction requires the complaint to present a genuine issue arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Oil Resources, Inc. v. Florida, Department of Banking & Finance · filed 1984-04-06

The Plaintiffs claim federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3), 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In essence, these statutes provide for federal jurisdiction when a Complaint on its face presents a federal question, that is, one “arising under” the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Plaintiffs allege the existence of two federal questions in this instance: they challenge the state’s Order as violating both the Commerce Clause (Article I, § 8, Clause 3) and the Due Process Clause (Paragraph One of the Fourteenth Amendment) of the Constitution. In order for jurisdiction to attach, the Court must first determine whether the Complaint presents a genuine issue under these two constitutional provisions.

Whether § 1331 jurisdiction exists depends on the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint.

Brown v. Bullock · filed 1961-09-05

Of course, we in no way imply that these serious claims will or will not be made out; whether a federal question is alleged depends upon well-pleaded allegations of the complaint.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction when no federal question appears on the face of the complaint.

New Hampshire v. National Broadcasting Co. · filed 1963-05-24

Because there is no federal question raised on the face of the complaint, there is no jurisdiction in this court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or § 1332.

Section 1331 requires a well-pleaded complaint to disclose a substantial dispute in which the claim is directly and necessarily founded on a federally created right or immunity.

Walker v. Savell · filed 1965-06-15

To invoke the original or removal jurisdiction of the inferior federal courts on the ground that the case or controversy arises under federal law, the face of the complaint must disclose by well-pleaded allegations that a genuine and substantial controversy exists as to whether the claim for relief is directly and necessarily founded upon a federally created right or immunity, which will be established or defeated by alternative interpretations of the federal law which created the right or immunity.

Section 1331(a) does not confer jurisdiction when the complaint presents no federal question.

Bivens v. 6 Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · filed 1967-11-24(a)

It is abundantly clear that no federal question is presented by the complaint.

Section 1331(a) requires the substantive rule supporting the plaintiff's requested remedy to be a product of federal law, and that arising-under determination is made solely from the complaint.

Moungey v. Brandt · filed 1966-02-10(a)

We construe them to mean that the rule of substance under which the plaintiff claims the right to have a remedy must be the product of federal law; her claim for relief must be founded “directly” on the laws of the United States. … Whether these tests are met is to be determined solely by looking to the allegations of the complaint. … We conclude that the complaint spells out a controversy which “arises under” the laws of the United States. This court has jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires both a substantial claim arising directly under federal law and a federal question appearing on the face of a well-pleaded complaint.

Baker v. FCH Services, Inc. · filed 1974-01-10

I find that this statute is insufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction in this case for two reasons: first, the case does not arise “directly” under the statute and second, the rigid pleading rule requires that the federal question must appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint.

Section 1331 requires the face of the complaint to show affirmatively and distinctly a substantial dispute over federal law on which the result depends.

Standage Ventures, Inc., an Arizona Corporation v. State of Arizona and County of Pinal · filed 1974-06-12(a)

To establish jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), it must appear from the face of the complaint, “affirmatively and distinctly” and not merely “argumentatively,” that the suit “really and substantially involves a dispute or controversy respecting the validity, construction, or effect of [a law of the United States], upon the determination of which the result depends.” Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U.S. 561, 569, 32 S.Ct. 704, 706, 56 L.Ed. 1205 (1912).

Section 1331 jurisdiction must appear from the plaintiff’s own cause of action and cannot rest on federal claims that the defendant may raise.

World Communications Corp. v. Micronesian Telecommunications Corp. · filed 1978-09-20

In oral argument, counsel for the plaintiffs asserted that federal question jurisdiction might also exist pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 due to the possibility of federal claims being raised by the defendant. This argument, however, is without merit because “a suit arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States only when the plaintiffs statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon those laws or that Constitution.”

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over federal issues that do not appear on the face of the well-pleaded complaint.

Campus Sweater & Sportswear Co. v. M. B. Kahn Construction Co. · filed 1979-09-28(a)

Since no federal question appears on the face of the well-pleaded complaint in this action.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the well-pleaded complaint; a complaint with no claim arising under federal law or substantial federal question does not establish jurisdiction.

Neat-N-Tidy Co., Inc. v. Tradepower (Holdings) Ltd. · filed 1991-11-08

The complaint alleges federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides that “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” In determining whether the complaint presents a federal question, the Court must determine whether it satisfies the well-pleaded complaint rule. ... Examination of the complaint, however, reveals no claim that may be colorably construed as one “arising under” federal law or embodying a “substantial federal question.” Because no such question is presented in the complaint, the court holds that it fails to allege federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction depends on the plaintiff’s properly pleaded claim; a federal issue raised only in the defendant’s pleadings does not confer jurisdiction.

Aquafaith Shipping, Ltd. v. Jarillas · filed 1992-06-24

For purposes of jurisdiction, we look only to the properly pleaded complaint or petition. ... We hold that Mrs. Jarillas's release claim is not subject to federal question jurisdiction and that her case should have been remanded to state court.

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction when a substantial federal element appears in the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint.

City of Reynoldsburg v. Browner · filed 1993-06-24

In cases in which a federal question is involved, original jurisdiction is conferred upon the federal courts if the matter in controversy “arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Thus, to determine whether a particular federal question is adequate to confer subject matter jurisdiction upon a court, two requirements must be met: (1) the suit must involve a pivotal and substantial federal element (not a frivolous element), and (2) the federal element must appear in the plaintiffs well-pleaded complaint. ... Having met the test for general federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Court assumes original jurisdiction over the suit.

Section 1331 requires a well-pleaded complaint to show that federal law creates the claim or that relief necessarily depends on a substantial federal question; state landlord-tenant claims do not satisfy that requirement merely because HUD holds the mortgage or federal funding is involved.

Evans v. Sentry Property Management Corp. · filed 1994-05-16

Federal jurisdiction must appear on the face of the complaint in order to remove a state claim to federal court. ... In the instant case, the plaintiffs Complaint is based solely on alleged violations of state landlord/tenant law. The Complaint neither establishes that federal law creates the cause of action, nor that the plaintiffs rights are dependent upon the resolution of federal law.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction when a well-pleaded complaint presents a federal claim or makes resolution of a substantial federal question essential to relief.

Gray v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc. · filed 1994-09-12

The presence or absence of federal question jurisdiction is governed by the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” under which the district courts may exercise jurisdiction if a federal question is presented by the plaintiffs’ statement of their own claims on the face of their properly pleaded complaint. If it appears that plaintiffs’ claim is created by federal law, or if it appears that the resolution of a substantial question of federal law is essential to plaintiffs’ right to relief, the district court will have jurisdiction to hear the case; otherwise, it will not.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; a defendant need not infer a federal basis from a complaint that does not present one.

Harmony Homes v. US ON BEHALF OF SMALL BUS. ADM. · filed 1995-07-03

This Court is unwilling to extend the holding in Lee to this case by requiring the Defendant to infer the appropriate federal statute. To do so would circumvent the "well-pleaded complaint rule," which "provides that federal-question jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint. " Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 2429, 96 L.Ed.2d 318 (1987) (emphasis added). No federal question appeared on the face of the Plaintiff's initial complaint or first amended complaint.

Section 1331 does not permit federal question jurisdiction over a petition to enjoin arbitration based solely on federal claims in the underlying arbitration.

Westmoreland Capital Corp. v. Findlay · filed 1996-02-14

However, federal question jurisdiction cannot be found by looking beyond the petition to the underlying claims that are the subject of the arbitration.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a well-pleaded complaint discloses a federal question.

Santitoro v. Evans · filed 1996-08-14

Original jurisdiction exists over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. An action arises under federal law when a plaintiffs well-pleaded complaint discloses a federal question.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff's pleading for federal-question jurisdiction.

Farm Credit Bank of Wichita v. Devous · filed 1996-08-15

(2) no jurisdiction exists, Mr. Devous having pled no facts that satisfy the complete diversity or amount in controversy requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 nor presented a federal question on the face of plaintiffs pleading as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1331; ... (5) the notice of removal does not contain a short, plain statement of the grounds for removal or copies of all process and pleadings served on Mr. Devous as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a).

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction over a complaint that neither raises a federal claim under the well-pleaded complaint rule nor states a claim completely pre-empted by federal law, even if a federal issue is the only disputed question.

Roux v. LOVELACE HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. · filed 1996-10-15

Where the complaint does not arise under federal law under either the well-pleaded complaint rule or the complete pre-emption doctrine, no federal question jurisdiction exists even if the only question in dispute is one of federal law.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of a properly pleaded complaint for a claim to arise under federal law.

Dykema Ex Rel. Estate of Dykema v. King · filed 1997-03-28

Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, a cause of action “arises under” federal law and removal is proper, only if a federal question is presented on the face of Plaintiffs properly pleaded complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint; an unsupported assertion of federal-question jurisdiction is insufficient.

Andress v. Deasy · filed 1997-06-05

Andress' complaint does not identify any federal constitutional or statutory provision; no federal question is apparent on the face of the complaint; and the alleged facts do not show a claim arising under federal law.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when the face of the plaintiff’s complaint reveals no federal-law issue.

Sherron v. Private Issue by Discover · filed 1997-09-09

The existence of a federal question will depend upon the application of the well-pleaded complaint rule. If the face of the plaintiffs complaint reveals no issue of federal law, there is no federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the well-pleaded complaint.

Grays Ferry Cogeneration Partnership v. PECO Energy Co. · filed 1998-03-19

In determining whether an action “arises under” federal law, we are governed by the well-pleaded complaint rule, which requires that a federal question be presented on the face of the complaint.

Section 1331 requires an essential federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.

Nogueras-Cartagena v. Rossello-Gonzalez · filed 1998-10-07

Jurisdiction in this case is founded upon the federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which mandates that the federal question appear from the four corners of plaintiffs properly pleaded complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the complaint; a possible federal claim inferred from the pleading does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Dardeau v. West Orange-Grove Consolidated Independent School District · filed 1999-03-29

If, as in the instant suit, plaintiff chooses not to assert a federal claim, then the defendant cannot remove to federal court based on the mere possibility that a federal claim was asserted.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.

Monmouth-Ocean Collection Service, Inc. v. Klor · filed 1999-04-05

“In order for a case to be removable under § 1441 and § 1331, the well-pleaded complaint rule requires the federal question be presented on the face of the plaintiffs properly pleaded complaint.” ... Here, the “well-pleaded complaint” alleges only state law causes of action against defendants. It does not present a federal question on its face.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction turns on whether the well-pleaded complaint asserts a claim arising under federal law.

Garrison v. Northeast Georgia Medical Center, Inc. · filed 1999-04-20

In determining whether there is jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal courts look to see whether plaintiff has asserted a claim that “arises under” federal law as set forth in his well-pleaded complaint.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction is evaluated from the well-pleaded complaint.

Wynn Ex Rel. Alabama v. Philip Morris Inc. · filed 1999-04-28

In modern federal courts practice, the federal question jurisdiction of the district courts is to be evaluated through examination of the well-pleaded complaint.

Federal-question jurisdiction does not arise from a negligence complaint merely because it refers to constitutional duties without pleading a federal claim.

Nida v. Zarc International, Inc. · filed 2000-04-19

Whatever Plaintiff may intend by “constitutional duties,” it does not recast a clear allegation of negligence into a 1983 claim.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction only when a federal question appears on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.

Interstate Petroleum Corp. v. Morgan · filed 2000-09-08

Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, federal question jurisdiction exists only when a federal question appears on the face of plaintiffs properly pleaded complaint.

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction only when a federal question appears on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.

Interstate Petroleum v. Morgan · filed 2000-11-13

Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, federal question jurisdiction exists only when a federal question appears on the face of plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal claim to appear on the face of the complaint for federal-question jurisdiction under the well-pleaded complaint rule.

Crump v. Worldcom, Inc. · filed 2001-02-26

Under this rule, where federal jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the federal claims must appear on the face of the complaint.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a federal question appears on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.

Lucia v. Teledyne Continental Motors · filed 2001-06-22

Whether a claim arises under federal law for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is generally determined by the well-pleaded complaint rule, “which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiffs properly pleaded complaint.”

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction when a well-pleaded complaint shows that federal law creates the claim or that relief necessarily depends on a substantial federal question.

Feuerzeig v. Innovative Communication Corp. · filed 2001-11-19

A federal court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to hear, either originally or by removal, “only those cases in which a well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiffs right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.”

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint separately pleads a claim arising under the United States Constitution.

Majeske v. Bay City Board of Education · filed 2001-12-27

Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, the plaintiff has stated a claim “arising under” the laws of the United States within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 1441(c).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a territorial quiet title claim when federal law need not appear in the well-pleaded complaint.

Club Comanche, Inc. v. Government of Virgin Islands · filed 2002-01-14

For the foregoing reasons, we hold that Club Comanche's quiet title claim does not "arise under" the laws or treaties of the United States within the meaning of section 1331, and therefore that the District Court did not have jurisdiction over this dispute under 48 U.S.C. S 1612(a).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a territorial quiet title claim when the federal issues need not appear in the well-pleaded complaint.

No. 01-1717 · filed 2002-01-14

Thus, in this case, the federal issues of interpreting the Convention Between the United States and Denmark, interpreting the federal statutes that transferred submerged and public lands from the United States to the GVI, and applying the federal common law of submerged lands, did not need to be raised in Club Comanche's well-pleaded quiet title complaint. Therefore, applying the well-pleaded complaint rule, Club Comanche's quiet title action does not contain a federal question sufficient to support jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 48 U.S.C. § 1612(a).

Section 1331 permits federal question jurisdiction only when a federal question appears on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint.

North Jefferson Square Associates v. Virginia Housing Development Authority · filed 2002-04-04

Under the well- pleaded complaint rule, federal question jurisdiction exists only when a federal question appears on the face of plaintiff’s complaint.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction when a federal question appears on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint.

Howard v. Food Lion, Inc. · filed 2002-10-23

The well-pleaded complaint rule mandates that a federal question must appear on the face of the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint for a claim to arise under federal law for purposes of federal subject matter jurisdiction. ... Because the complaint itself raises federal questions central to the dispute, Plaintiff's reliance on the well-pleaded complaint rule is inappropriate.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a well-pleaded ERISA claim alleging a direct federal-law violation, even when the court also considers veil piercing as a remedy.

Trustees Natl v. Lutyk · filed 2003-06-11

By contrast, the “well-pleaded complaint” in this action asserted claims based on ERISA for both the unremitted employee wage deductions and the unpaid employer contributions. ... Whatever implications Peacock has on the statutory authority of district courts to “pierce the corporate veil” in ERISA cases, we are satisfied that the District Court properly invoked federal subject-matter jurisdiction over this dispute.

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction only when a federal question appears on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.

Petty v. Gulf Guaranty Insurance · filed 2003-08-22

Whether a claim arises under federal law so as to confer federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is governed by the well-pleaded complaint rule, which provides that “federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiffs properly pleaded complaint.”

Section 1331 generally gives federal-question jurisdiction only when a federal issue appears on the face of the complaint.

Connolly v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare, Inc. · filed 2003-08-25

Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, federal question jurisdiction exists only when an issue of federal law appears on the face of the complaint.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction is determined under the well-pleaded complaint rule.

Loftis v. United Parcel Service, Inc. David Cole, Kenneth Adkins · filed 2003-08-26

Federal courts use the “well-pleaded complaint” rule to determine “arising under” jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a well-pleaded complaint to raise an issue of federal law on its face; a claim identifying no deprivation of a federally protected interest does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Checknan v. McElroy · filed 2004-04-06

Checknan alleges that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 gives this Court subject matter jurisdiction. However, as the Second Circuit has stated regarding 28 U.S.C. § 1331, “[fjederal question jurisdiction generally exists only when a well-pleaded complaint raises issue of federal law on its face.” ... Here, Checknan has failed to identify an interest of which he has been deprived that is protected by federal law.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint.

Von Loh v. Synthes, Inc. · filed 2004-08-03

Plaintiff fails to meet the first condition, because no question of federal law appears on the face of his amended complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal claim to appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint to support federal-question jurisdiction.

Pascack Valley Hospital, Inc. v. Local 464A UFCW Welfare Reimbursement Plan Pascack Valley Hospital, Inc. · filed 2004-11-01

A civil action filed in a state court may be removed to federal court if the claim is one “arising under” federal law. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441(a). Under the “well-pleaded complaint” rule, the plaintiff is ordinarily entitled to remain in state court so long as its complaint does not, on its face, affirmatively allege a federal claim.

Federal-question jurisdiction ordinarily depends on whether the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint presents a claim arising under federal law.

Munoz v. Island Finance Corp. · filed 2005-03-28

Ordinarily, the determination of whether a particular case arises under federal law turns on the “well-pleaded complaint” rule.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction when a federal question appears on the face of a well-pleaded complaint; failure to state a viable claim does not itself defeat jurisdiction.

Abele v. Grant Tolbert · filed 2005-05-03

Whether a claim arises under federal law for purposes of federal question jurisdiction is governed by the “well-pleaded complaint” rule, which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the complaint.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction when a federal question appears on the face of a properly pleaded complaint.

PANHANDLE AREA COUNCIL v. Idaho · filed 2005-07-15

In making this determination, it is well established that the “presence or absence of federal question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiffs properly pleaded complaint.”

Section 1331 does not confer federal jurisdiction over a discovery issue in state litigation that does not affect the substantive claim.

Jaskolski, Joseph v. Daniels, Rick · filed 2005-10-21

Issues that affect discovery but not the substantive claim flunk the well-pleaded-complaint doctrine and so do not come within §1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a separate suit based only on a federal issue affecting discovery in a pending state case.

Joseph Jaskolski and National Insurance Crime Bureau v. Rick Daniels · filed 2005-10-21

Issues that affect discovery but not the substantive claim flunk the well-pleaded-complaint doctrine and so do not come within § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction when the face of the complaint alleges constitutional violations enforceable under § 1983.

Ponce v. Socorro Independent School District · filed 2006-05-02

In the instant case, Plaintiffs have alleged violations of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution enforceable under § 1983. Thus, the action, on its face, clearly arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts a claim arising directly under federal law, including a § 1983 claim.

Donaldson v. City of Walterboro Police Department · filed 2006-11-28

Applying the well-pleaded complaint rule to the present case, the court finds that Plaintiffs Complaint clearly asserts a federal question capable of creating federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the complaint for federal-question jurisdiction.

Wexler v. United Air Lines, Inc. · filed 2007-07-31

The well-pleaded complaint rule states that a federal question must appear on the face of the complaint in order to create federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.

Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. v. Smith · filed 2007-11-14

Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is proper “only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiffs properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392, 107 S.Ct. 2425.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction only when a federal question appears on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint.

Venezuela v. Massimo Zanetti Beverage USA, Inc. · filed 2007-11-21

This rule provides that federal question jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff s properly pleaded complaint.

Section 1331 jurisdiction follows the well-pleaded complaint rule, under which a court looks to the plaintiff’s complaint to decide whether the case raises a federal question.

Daly v. Zobel · filed 2008-04-14

In determining whether a plaintiff’s claim arises under federal law, for purposes of federal question jurisdiction under § 1331, district courts apply the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” which holds that courts ordinarily “look no farther than the plaintiff’s complaint in determining whether a lawsuit raises issues of federal law capable of creating federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.”

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a § 271(a) patent infringement action when the complaint satisfies the well-pleaded complaint rule.

Litecubes, LLC v. Northern Light Products, Inc. · filed 2008-04-28

The district court also has jurisdiction over § 271(a) causes of action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the general federal question jurisdictional statute, to which the same well-pleaded complaint rule applies, Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a complaint alleges misconduct involving benefits covered by a collective bargaining agreement.

Danielson v. Innovative Communications, Corp. · filed 2008-06-24

Moreover, a complaint does not raise a federal question on its face simply because the nature of the misconduct alleged therein involves benefits covered by a collective bargaining agreement.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint for federal-question jurisdiction.

NE Southern Railroad v. B&M, et al. · filed 2008-09-30

In determining whether an action arises under federal law, the court follows the well-pleaded complaint rule, which "provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint."

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint for federal-question jurisdiction.

Shenker v. City of Lawrence · filed 2009-03-06

To satisfy federal question jurisdiction, a federal question “must appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint”. ... Shenker’s pro se complaint does not refer to a violation of any federal statute or treaty.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; a federal cross-claim does not establish arising-under jurisdiction.

Palmer v. University of Medicine and Dentistry · filed 2009-03-27

UMDNJ fails to demonstrate that this action “arises under” federal law for purposes of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the well-pleaded complaint and does not itself supply a federal claim.

Soto v. Rodham-Clinton · filed 2009-04-14

Defendant is correct. Section 1331 is not itself a source of jurisdiction and a federal question must appear on the face of the well-pleaded complaint.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a federal question appears on the face of a properly pleaded complaint.

CITY OF ASHTABULA v. Norfolk Southern Corp. · filed 2009-06-17

Federal question jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiffs properly pleaded complaint. ... Here, Plaintiffs complaint clearly sets out facts raising a dispute of federal law that invokes subject matter jurisdiction in this Court.

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the plaintiff’s complaint; a federal claim in a defendant’s cross-complaint cannot confer federal-question jurisdiction.

Fortuna v. ILLINOIS SPORTS · filed 2009-11-12

Further, as discussed above, the Section 1983 claim set forth in Morandi’s cross-complaint cannot provide the Court with jurisdiction under Section 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction only when the well-pleaded complaint shows that federal law creates the cause of action or relief necessarily depends on a substantial federal-law question.

Packard v. Farmers Ins. of Columbus, Inc. · filed 2009-12-01

Federal question jurisdiction exists only when the “well-pleaded complaint standing alone establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiffs right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” ... The Court has found, in this Order, that federal law does not create the claims raised in plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, nor does their right to relief depend on a resolution of a substantial question of federal law.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction only when a federal question appears on the face of a properly pleaded complaint.

Shannon's Rainbow, LLC v. Supernova Media, Inc. · filed 2010-01-26

“The presence or absence of federal question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well pleaded complaint rule’ which only provides federal jurisdiction when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiffs properly pleaded complaint.” ... Because the Court finds no federal question in the present Amended Complaint, subject matter jurisdiction must arise through diversity.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction when the well pleaded complaint alleges a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Mendenhall v. City of Akro · filed 2010-03-29

Whether a claim arises under federal law is determined by examining the “well pleaded” allegations of the complaint and ignoring potential defenses. ... We find that the district court did not err in denying the motion for remand.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; a defendant’s constitutional allegations do not create federal-question jurisdiction.

Citimortgage, Inc. v. Dhinoja · filed 2010-04-13

Additionally, even though Dhinoja’s notice of removal alleges that Georgia’s dispossessory process violates his rights under the United States Constitution, a Court’s inquiry into the presence of federal question jurisdiction is limited to the allegations found in the plaintiffs well-pleaded complaint. ... Consequently, the Court finds that there is no federal question presented such that this Court may exercise subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint.

DiPaolo v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. · filed 2011-06-28

In order for the court to have federal question jurisdiction over the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, a federal question must be present on the face of the plaintiffs well-pleaded complaint.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint expressly seeks recovery under federal law.

Staples v. Regions Bank · filed 2011-11-10

Based on the foregoing authority, the court concludes that the fact that plaintiffs sought actual recovery under “federal privacy laws” in their complaint is sufficient to give rise to federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the complaint for federal-question jurisdiction.

In re Vioxx Products Liability Litigation · filed 2012-01-03

The parties dispute whether the Court has either federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). In addressing a motion to remand for lack of federal question jurisdiction, the Court applies the “ Svell-pleaded complaint’ rule and searches for a federal question presented on the face of the complaint.”

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction only when a federal question appears on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.

Community State Bank v. Knox · filed 2012-02-03

In determining such “federal question” jurisdiction, “[t]he presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiffs properly pleaded complaint.”

Section 1331 requires a well-pleaded complaint showing that federal law creates the cause of action or that relief necessarily depends on a substantial federal question.

Tinner v. Farmers Insurance Company · filed 2012-12-04

For a case to arise under federal law within the meaning of § 1331, the plaintiff’s “well-pleaded complaint” must establish either: (1) “federal law creates the cause of action” or (2) “the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.”

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction only when the well-pleaded complaint presents an issue of federal law.

Noble Shaheed Allah El v. Avesta Homes, LLC · filed 2013-05-29

Federal question jurisdiction exists only when the plaintiffs’ well-pleaded complaint presents issues of federal law. ... Because the district court properly concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction based on a federal question or diversity jurisdiction, we affirm the dismissal of the remaining state law claims and the complaint.

A complaint alleging violations of Title VI, Title VII, and Title IX provides an adequate basis for federal-question jurisdiction.

Redd v. McDowell County Board of Education · filed 2013-09-30

Based upon a review of Plaintiffs Complaint, the undersigned finds an adequate basis for federal question jurisdiction. In her Complaint, Plaintiff specifically alleges violations of federal law. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated Title VI, Title VII, Title IX, and the U.S. Department of Education—Title 34-Part 100-Non discrimination Under Programs Receiving Federal Assistance Through the Department of Education Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a suit arising substantially under federal securities law when the federal claim appears on the face of a well-pleaded complaint.

Bailey v. Buck · filed 2013-10-25

The district court properly determined that it had subject matter jurisdiction in this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the suit arose, in substantial part, under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10(b)-5. Plaintiffs’ federal claim appears on the face a well-pleaded complaint that satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) and of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

Section 1331 covers claims whose well-pleaded complaint establishes that federal law creates the cause of action or that the right to relief necessarily depends on resolving a substantial question of federal law.

In re Standard & Poor's Rating Agency Litigation · filed 2014-06-03

As a general matter, a claim falls within that grant of jurisdiction “only [in] those cases in which a well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiffs right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.”

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint attaches and fully incorporates a discrimination charge asserting a Title VII violation.

Davoodi v. Austin Independent School District · filed 2014-06-16

Here, because Davoodi attached and fully incorporated the Charge into his complaint, it became a part of his complaint for all purposes. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c) (“A copy of a written instrument that is an exhibit to a pleading is a part of the pleading for all purposes.” (emphasis added)). Thus, Davoodi’s “well-pleaded complaint” included the assertion that he “ha[d] been and continue[d] to be discriminated against, in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as amended, [and] the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act.” As a result, the district court had original federal question jurisdiction over Davoodi’s lawsuit and removal was proper.

Section 1331 requires the federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a federal question raised by the defendant does not establish arising-under jurisdiction.

Sanders v. Farina · filed 2014-11-18

In any event, the federal question defendant alleges does not arise on the face of plaintiffs complaint and thus the case is not one “arising under” federal law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Federal-question jurisdiction under Section 1331 depends on the allegations in the complaint and whether the claim as stated arises under the Constitution or laws of the United States.

International Diamond Importers, Inc. v. Oriental Gemco (N.Y.), Inc. · filed 2014-11-24

“For the purpose of determining whether a district court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to Article III and 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the jurisdictional inquiry ‘depends entirely upon the allegations in the complaint’ and asks whether the claim as stated in the complaint ‘arises under the Constitution or laws of the United States.’ ”

Section 1331 requires the federal-question inquiry to begin with the claims appearing on the face of the complaint.

Michael v. Boutwell · filed 2015-10-07

Here, there is no dispute that the parties are not diverse so as to implicate diversity jurisdiction, so the sole question presented is whether Plaintiffs’ complaint invokes federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... There is no dispute in this case that Plaintiffs’ amended complaint, on its face, contains constitutional- claims asserted through the vehicle of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; federal claims raised later do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Laddusire v. Auto-Owners Insurance (In re Laddusire) · filed 2015-11-19

Here, there is no other basis for federal jurisdiction. As discussed earlier, the Debtor now asserts federal claims, but none appear in the complaint of the removed action. “[F]ederal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiffs properly pleaded complaint.”

Section 1331 requires a well-pleaded complaint asserting adequate facts to support a federal-law claim for federal-question jurisdiction.

Kalim A.R. Muhammad v. Brenda L. Bethel Muhammad · filed 2016-06-27

Furthermore, due to the deficiencies in Muhammad’s complaint, federal question jurisdiction is also lacking. Although Muhammad mentioned a number of federal- law claims, his complaint is not “well-pleaded” because he failed to assert adequate facts on which to base his claims.

Section 1331 requires the basis for federal-question jurisdiction to appear on the face of the pleading that starts the case, including a motion to vacate an arbitration award.

Goldman v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc · filed 2016-08-22

For both forms of federal question jurisdiction – the ordinary variety and the rarer Grable type – the party asserting jurisdiction must satisfy the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” which mandates that the grounds for jurisdiction be clear on the face of the pleading that initiates the case.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.

Bryant v. Pacific Investment Managment Company LLC · filed 2018-02-16

The federal district courts are vested with jurisdiction over "all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is present on the face of the plaintiffs properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Plaintiff has not made any allegations that appear to form the basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the complaint; checking a federal-question box without identifying any federal law does not establish jurisdiction.

Saunders v. Saunders · filed 2018-05-24

Finding that Plaintiff’s Complaint does not, on its face, present a federal question, the Court therefore finds that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction such that it may properly adjudicate Plaintiff’s claims.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction only when a federal question appears on the face of a properly pleaded complaint.

Garrison v. Deutsche Bank National Trust · filed 2018-06-25

Under the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” federal jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of a properly pleaded complaint.

Section 1331 generally requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint for federal-question jurisdiction.

Montelongo-Morales v. Driscoll · filed 2019-02-07

Removal based on this type of original jurisdiction is generally governed by the well-pleaded complaint rule. That rule states an action "aris[es] under" federal law "only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint."

Section 1331 uses the well-pleaded-complaint rule to determine whether a civil action arises under federal law.

Hill v. Davis · filed 2019-03-06

However, in order to determine if a particular case arises under federal law for the purposes of § 1331, courts are governed by the well-pleaded-complaint rule.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear in a well-pleaded complaint for federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Fozard v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P. · filed 2019-05-31

For subject matter jurisdiction to exist under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, a well-pleaded complaint must reveal a federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint presents no federal question on its face and requires no resolution of a substantial federal-law question.

Alvey v. Bey · filed 2019-08-07

Because federal question jurisdiction is not present on the face of the Unified Government’s complaint and defendant has not shown that the complaint requires resolution of a substantial question of federal law, defendant cannot meet her burden to show that jurisdiction is proper in federal court.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; a complaint alleging no federal-law or constitutional claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Alexander v. Texas State Board of Medical Examiners · filed 2019-08-12

The Court also does not have federal question jurisdiction in this case. Under the “well-pleaded complaint” rule, “a federal court has original or removal jurisdiction only if a federal question appears on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint.” Bernhard v. Whitney Nat’l Bank, 523 F.3d 546, 551 (5th Cir. 2008). Plaintiff has failed to plead a claim under federal law or under the United States Constitution in this case.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.

Trails at Mount Moriah v. Johnson · filed 2019-08-14

Federal jurisdiction only exists when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.

Section 1331 requires the face of the complaint to show either a cause of action created by federal law or a right to relief that depends on a substantial question of federal law.

Hakeem v. Denver Public Schools · filed 2019-08-23

Because plaintiff’s cause of action was not created by federal law, and his right to relief does not depend on the resolution of a substantial question of federal law, it does not appear from the face of plaintiff’s complaint that this claim arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of a well-pleaded complaint, and state tort claims based on FDCA-regulated packaging do not raise a substantial federal question merely because federal law governs that packaging.

Abadjian v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc. · filed 2019-08-23

The “well-pleaded complaint rule” governs federal question jurisdiction. This rule provides that district courts can exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 only when a federal question appears on the face of a well-pleaded complaint. ... As the circumstances of this case fall well within Merrell Dow, the court concludes that plaintiffs’ complaint does not raise a substantial federal question.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts subject-matter jurisdiction when a well-pleaded complaint asserts independent causes of action under federal law.

Nichols v. Jazz Casino Co., LLC · filed 2019-09-19

Because Nichols’s complaint invokes federal law under the ADA and ADEA, this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and the motion to remand must be denied.

Section 1331 requires a federal claim in the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; a defendant’s proposed federal takings claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Providence City v. Thompson · filed 2019-10-07

This court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction because Providence City’s Amended Complaint does not advance any federal claims.

Federal-question jurisdiction requires a federal question on the face of the complaint; a separate EEOC charge cannot supply one.

Alonso v. Kalischatarra Iron & Metal NM, LLC · filed 2019-10-10

An EEOC charge is not a pleading, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a), and, therefore, the Court cannot look to it when determining whether federal-question jurisdiction exists under the well-pleaded-complaint rule.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state eviction complaint that asserts no federal claim on its face.

ARORA v. BARRETTA · filed 2019-10-15

PlaintifPs Complaint does not assert a federal claim. Instead, Plaintiff filed a summary proceeding to evict Defendants for failure to pay rent. Notice of Removal, Ex. A. Accordingly, there is no federal question jurisdiction on the face of the Complaint.

Section 1331 requires the plaintiff’s complaint to show a federal-law basis for the claim; a defendant’s demurrer cannot supply federal-question jurisdiction.

(UD) (PS) Cool Time LLC v. Chidester · filed 2019-10-21

Because plaintiff’s complaint does not show that it is based upon federal law, the court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the action.

Section 1331 requires a well-pleaded complaint to show that federal law creates the claim or that relief necessarily depends on a substantial federal question.

Shaw v. Dolton Riverdale School District 148 · filed 2019-11-04

A federal court has jurisdiction under § 1331 only if “a well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Empire HealthChoice Assur., Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677, 690 (2006) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Tr. for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 27– 28 (1983)).

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; a defendant cannot create federal-question jurisdiction through an answer or demurrer.

(UD)(PS)Li v. Duncan · filed 2019-11-08

The face of a properly-pled state law unlawful detainer action does not present a federal question. Therefore, Plaintiff’s complaint avoids federal question jurisdiction. Defendant cannot inject a federal issue through her answer or demurrer.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when no federal question appears on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint.

Lussier v. GBC Inc · filed 2019-11-12

First, Defendants have not shown 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides a basis for jurisdiction, because no federal question appears on the face of Plaintiff’s complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint for federal-question jurisdiction to exist.

Hastings v. U.S. Bank National Association · filed 2019-11-15

A federal question must appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint for jurisdiction to exist.

Section 1331 applies the well-pleaded complaint rule: a federal question must appear on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.

Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas v. Gillis · filed 2019-11-22

For purposes of § 1331, the Court applies the well-pleaded complaint rule to determine whether a claim arises under federal law.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of a properly pleaded complaint; a complaint with no facts supporting a claim under federal law does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Guidry v. Waveland Inc · filed 2020-01-22

Whether a claim arises under federal law so as to confer federal question jurisdiction is governed by the well-pleaded complaint rule, which provides that “federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.” ... Accordingly, this Court finds that the plaintiff has not satisfied his burden of proving the existence of federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction when a well-pleaded complaint bases a cause of action on federal law.

Kazee, Inc. v. Leach · filed 2020-03-02

Under the “well-pleaded complaint” rule, a suit arises under federal law when a complaint shows that the cause of action is based on federal law.

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the plaintiff’s original well-pleaded complaint; a federal crossclaim cannot supply jurisdiction.

Smith v. Stern · filed 2020-03-06

To hold otherwise would transform the “well-pleaded-complaint rule” into the “well-pleaded-complaint- or-crossclaim rule,” which is not something the Court is willing to do in view of the decades of precedent to the contrary.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; Rule 60(d) supplies no independent basis for federal-question jurisdiction.

Lemke v. Barber · filed 2020-03-25

Federal question jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint. ... Accordingly, Rule 60(d) does not provide an independent basis for federal jurisdiction. Here, the FAC asserts state law claims of fraud.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint that, on its face, asserts only a small-claims demand for money owed.

Ripley v. Papastarvou · filed 2020-04-15

It is clear from examining the face of the Complaint that this action is simply a claim for money owed in small claims court in Union County, North Carolina. Furthermore, both parties reside in North Carolina, and the amount in controversy is not more than $75,000. Thus, neither “federal question” jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, nor “diversity jurisdiction” under 28 USS.C. § 1332, exist in this case.

Section 1331 generally requires the federal nature of a claim to appear on the face of the complaint.

S.M.A. MEDICAL, INC. v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC. · filed 2020-04-20

Generally speaking, 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 has been interpreted to require the plaintiff to demonstrate the federal nature of the claims on the face of the complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a detainer pleading seeking eviction and unpaid rent does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Meadows v. Douglass · filed 2020-05-11

The Court’s “review of whether federal-question jurisdiction exists is governed by the well-pleaded complaint rule, which provides that jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint.” ... Here, the Summons attached to Defendants’ removal petition does not invoke federal law; it seeks only eviction, unpaid rent, and related restitution. The face of this pleading, therefore, does not support federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear in the well-pleaded complaint; a petition seeking relief under state mandamus law without invoking federal law does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Kennedy v. Rodgers · filed 2020-06-22

The federal question “must appear in the well-pleaded [C]omplaint.” ... Here, the Petition does not raise a federal question.

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction only when a federal question appears on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.

G.G. (minor) v. The Kansas City, Missouri School District · filed 2020-06-23

This long-standing doctrine provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federally created right or immunity on the face of the complaint; an inadequately alleged federal claim cannot support federal-question jurisdiction.

Fort v. Abzco LLC · filed 2020-06-25

Because Fort fails to allege a RICO claim adequately, no federally created right or immunity appears on the face of the complaint. Consequently, the complaint cannot rest on federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the well-pleaded complaint; reliance solely on the Declaratory Judgment Act without a federal claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Brazil v. Baskin · filed 2020-07-07

But Plaintiff nowhere asserts a federal claim against Defendant, instead relying exclusively on the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a).

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a well-pleaded complaint states a claim created by federal law, including a claim under the FDCPA.

(PS) Sharma v. HSI Asset Loan Obligation Trust 2007-1 · filed 2020-07-17

Under the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” plaintiffs’ complaint states a cause of action created by federal law under the FDCPA. See Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987); Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque, 582 F.3d 1083 at 1091. Accordingly, a proper basis exists for DBNTC’s removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a well-pleaded complaint that raises an issue of federal law to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Williams v. Equifax Credit Bureau · filed 2020-07-24

A cause of action “arises under federal law only when the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint raises issues of federal law.” Hansen v. Blue Cross of Cal., 891 F.2d 1384, 1386 (9th Cir. 1989). ... Here, it is unclear what federal claims Williams seeks to bring.

Section 1331 ordinarily permits federal-question jurisdiction only when a federal claim appears on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint.

MAGLIOLI v. ANDOVER SUBACUTE REHABILITATION I · filed 2020-08-12

The “well-pleaded complaint” rule dictates that a plaintiff is ordinarily entitled to its chosen state-court forum so long as its complaint does not allege a federal claim on its face.

Section 1331 requires a federal claim on the face of a well-pleaded complaint for federal-question jurisdiction.

Eaton v. Big Blue Healthcare, Inc. · filed 2020-08-19

Here, Plaintiff has alleged negligence under state law. Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, then, there is no federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction when a well-pleaded complaint asserts a sufficiently substantial federal claim on its face.

Green v. City of Jackson, Mississippi · filed 2020-08-21

For all of the reasons discussed, this court concludes Plaintiff has asserted federal jurisdiction on the face of the Complaint with sufficient substance to confer subject matter jurisdiction on this Court.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.

Kermanshahi v. Addineh · filed 2020-08-26

The well-pleaded complaint rule “provides that federal jurisdiction 3 || exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly 4 || pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393, 107 S. Ct. 2425, 5 || 2430, 96 L. Ed. 318 (1987). The Court’s review of the Petition shows that there is 6 || no federal question apparent from the face of the Petition, which appears to be solely 7 || a petition for dissolution of marriage.

Federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 requires a federal issue on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; a federal counterclaim does not confer it.

Bank of America, N.A. v. Collis · filed 2020-10-26

Here, the Complaint asserts only a state law breach of contract claim. There is no federal question on the face of the well-pleaded complaint. Although Collis has asserted a counterclaim based on a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p (2018), such a federal counterclaim does not confer federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires federal-question jurisdiction to arise from the plaintiff’s claims; a defendant’s counterclaims cannot supply it.

Krane v. Brown · filed 2020-10-27

However, to properly remove this lawsuit from state court, Brown must show that this Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims, not Brown’s counterclaims.

Federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 generally depends on the claims in the well-pleaded complaint.

Childs v. The Kroger Co. · filed 2020-11-30

Generally, though, Courts apply the well-pleaded complaint rule when determining whether federal question jurisdiction exists. ... The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and concludes that the Chief Magistrate Judge correctly applied the well-pleaded complaint rule in this case.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; a defendant’s federal counterclaim does not establish jurisdiction.

Barrie v. Fiorentino · filed 2020-12-07

That Defendant advances a counterclaim arising under the federal FDCPA is of no moment because the Court must look to the face of Plaintiffs’ properly pleaded complaint, not to Defendant’s counterclaim.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff’s complaint alleges only state causes of action and no claim arising under federal law.

Cambiano v. Kelsay · filed 2020-12-08

Accordingly, neither complaint states a cause of action which arises under federal law as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and this Court lacks federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires facts on the face of the complaint supporting a cause of action created by federal law to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Wolfe v. Rushmore Loan Management Services · filed 2020-12-14

In the present case, Plaintiff has not met his burden of establishing federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not establish federal-question jurisdiction when the face of the complaint fails to identify any claim arising under federal law.

LS3 Inc. v. Cherokee Nation Strategic Programs, L.L.C. · filed 2020-12-28

As a result, it does not appear from the face of plaintiff’s complaint that any of its claims arise under federal law or that the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state due-process claim merely because the defendant argues that the claim necessarily implicates Title IX.

Doe v. Advocates for Science and Mathematics Education, Inc. · filed 2021-01-27

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s “well-pleaded complaint” does not raise issues of federal law sufficient to support federal question jurisdiction and therefore remands the instant action to state court. Defendants’ argument that the petition “necessarily implicates” Title IX mischaracterizes Plaintiff’s claim in this matter.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; a federal counterclaim does not supply original jurisdiction.

Rez Capital, LLC v. Perez DO NOT DOCKET. CASE REMANDED TO 94th DISTRICT COURT. · filed 2021-01-28

Because Rez is not a defendant to the civil action (and neither are the Perezes), and because the federal question does not appear on the face of Rez’s petition, this Court does not have original jurisdiction and, therefore, the removal was improper—even if procedural obstacles were waived.

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the well-pleaded complaint; a federal counterclaim or crossclaim alone does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Santi v. Batache · filed 2021-02-05

And the mere fact that Defendant’s counterclaims or crossclaims implicate federal law is not enough for this Court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal claim on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a tenant’s federal allegations do not supply federal-question jurisdiction over a landlord’s eviction claim.

HIGHVIEW TERRACE APARTMENTS v. ABULKHAIR · filed 2021-03-04

Second, Plaintiff does not raise any federal question pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... The Court finds that no claim arising under the Constitution or other federal law can be found on the face of Plaintiff's Complaint. It is well-settled that a landlord-plaintiff's eviction claim against a tenant-defendant does not establish a federal claim.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction when a well-pleaded complaint alleges causes of action arising under federal law, including allegations incorporated from an attached EEOC charge.

Rayner v. Stringer Water Works Association · filed 2021-03-08

The circumstances indicate that Rayner’s EEOC charge was fully incorporated, and Davoodi’s application of Rule 10(c) applies. Therefore, we consider the allegations in Rayner’s attached EEOC charge when evaluating jurisdiction. ... Based on the allegations in Rayner’s well-pleaded Complaint, federal question jurisdiction existed at the time of removal.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction must appear from the well-pleaded complaint; a federal counterclaim cannot establish it.

PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC v. JOHNSON · filed 2021-03-08

However, the Supreme Court has made clear that a counterclaim may not be considered to establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff’s state-court complaint raises no claim under the Constitution or federal law.

UFM Realty Corporation v. Matthews · filed 2021-03-09

However, the state court complaint attached to the notice of removal does not show that this case arises under the Constitution or laws of the United States, as would provide jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.

Imperial Urban Housing, LP. v. Santana · filed 2021-04-02

Specifically, a claim arises under federal law “only when a federal question is presented on the face of plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.”

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction based on a defendant’s federal counterclaims when no federal question appears on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.

Parkwell v. Pines · filed 2021-04-07

Pines’s contention that he has federal counterclaims is insufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint for federal-question jurisdiction.

Blast All, Inc. v. Ingelsby · filed 2021-04-08

“The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.”

Section 1331 requires even a pro se complaint to comply with the well-pleaded complaint rule to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Hebert v. Central Intelligence Agency · filed 2021-04-16

A pro se complaint must comply with the well- pleaded complaint rule.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; a defendant’s federal arguments do not establish jurisdiction.

Catamount Properties 2018, LLC v. Lucore · filed 2021-04-28

Here, removal is based on procedural and substantive arguments Defendant can raise in State court. No federal question appears on the face of the unlawful detainer complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; a federal counterclaim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Port of Bellingham v. Bornstein Seafoods Inc · filed 2021-05-04

The court concludes that CERCLA § 113(b) does not apply to strip the state court of jurisdiction to decide this case and does not disturb the rule that removal jurisdiction lies only where a federal question is presented in the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction depends on the claims actually presented in the complaint, not claims a defendant believes the plaintiff should have pleaded.

VIOLETTE v. CITI BANK · filed 2021-05-04

The well-pleaded complaint rule directs the Court to consider the claims actually presented within the four corners of the Complaint, not those which it feels a pro se plaintiff ought to have pleaded.