28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction but does not itself create a cause of action.

Egli v. Fojtik · filed 2023-08-04

But Mr. Egli cannot bring this case under Section 1331, for that provision “does not create causes of action, but only confers jurisdiction to adjudicate those arising from other sources which satisfy its limiting provisions.” Montana-Dakota Utils. Co. v. Northwest Pub. Serv. Co., 341 U.S. 246, 249 (1951).

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction but does not itself supply a civil claim for relief.

Phillips v. OCR Office in Boston MA · filed 2025-04-24

Section 1331 is a jurisdictional statute, and, as a general rule, criminal laws cannot form the basis of a civil private action.

Section 1331 provides federal question jurisdiction but does not itself authorize a plaintiff to assert constitutional rights directly in a civil suit when § 1983 is the required vehicle.

Walls v. Donathan · filed 2025-05-12

That statute provide federal question jurisdiction to this Court. However, in order to assert a Constitutional right in a civil case, Plaintiff cannot assert that Constitutional right directly; he may only do so via § 1983.

Section 1331 grants jurisdiction over qualifying claims arising from other sources but does not itself create a cause of action.

McCumsey v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections · filed 2026-01-22

Finally, as for § 1331, the statute itself does not create causes of action, but only establishes jurisdiction to adjudicate those arising from other sources that satisfy its limiting provisions.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction but does not itself create a cause of action.

Loyd v. Raymond L. Loyd, Kenneth L. Owens, and Judith Owens · filed 1984-03-26

Section 1331 is merely a grant of original jurisdiction to the federal courts of all civil actions arising under the Constitution. The only basis occurring to us on which the plaintiff could gain entry to the federal court, and stay there any length of time, would be because of a violation of rights protected under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1331 does not give district courts jurisdiction over claims based on the Full Faith and Credit Clause or the Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act because neither creates a federal cause of action.

Stewart v. Lastaiti · filed 2010-10-28

The Supreme Court has held that neither the Full Faith and Credit Clause nor 28 U.S.C. § 1738A, the Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act (“PKPA”), creates a federal cause of action for purposes of § 1331 jurisdiction. ... In considering the claims in Stewart’s complaint, the district court properly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a claim relying solely on the Full Faith and Credit Clause; the claim needs an independent jurisdictional basis.

Adar v. Smith · filed 2011-04-12

Although the full faith and credit clause is part of the Constitution within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, “there is no jurisdiction because the relation of the constitutional provision and the claim is not sufficiently direct that the case ‘arises under’ the clause.” 13D W RIGHT & M ILLER § 3563, at 214. Absent an independent source of jurisdiction over such claims, federal district courts may not hear such cases.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim relying solely on the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Adar v. Smith · filed 2011-04-13

That the clause affords a rule of decision in state courts is reinforced by the cases that hold reliance on the clause alone insufficient to invoke federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction merely because a removal notice invokes the Full Faith and Credit Clause to challenge state-court rulings.

Donovitz · filed 2025-10-23

Courts in this District have similarly ruled that a “notice of removal’s invocation of the full faith and credit clause to resolve discrepancies between rulings from the state courts of [other states] and Delaware does not provide an independent basis of federal jurisdiction.”

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction is reverse-preempted by the McCarran-Ferguson Act when its exercise would impair state insurance rehabilitation law.

United States v. Wisconsin State Circuit Court for Dane County · filed 2011-02-18

In the present case, the United States cites 26 U.S.C. § 7402 (authorizing injunctions “as may be necessary or appropriate for the enforcement of the internal revenue laws”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal question) and 1340 (federal tax issues), as the basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction. ... Thus, for reasons substantially similar to those stated in the remand order, these jurisdictional statutes are reverse-preempted by the McCarran-Ferguson Act.

Section 1331 does not allow a court to exercise federal-question jurisdiction on a theory the plaintiffs have not advanced.

Williams v. C & D Technologies, Inc. · filed 2011-06-23

However, plaintiffs have not made this argument, and for this reason I may not exercise jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts subject matter jurisdiction over FLSA claims, and failure to satisfy a contractual condition precedent to litigation does not remove that jurisdiction.

Holick v. Cellular Sales of New York, LLC · filed 2013-03-29

To wit, it is clear that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims based on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 pursuant to the FLSA. Plaintiffs failure to have satisfied a condition precedent to litigation cannot divest this Court of subject matter jurisdiction, “a matter that can never be forfeited or waived.”

Section 1331 gives a federal court jurisdiction over a claim under federal law even when the parties have a valid arbitration agreement.

Scott-Ortiz v. CBRE Incorporated · filed 2020-11-18

The Court is not persuaded that the presence of a valid arbitration agreement 24 interferes with its subject-matter jurisdiction. ... This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over that claim under 8 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 jurisdiction ceases when an amended complaint removes all federal claims that supplied original jurisdiction.

Ciesla v. City of Temple Terrace · filed 2022-05-27

When this action was removed, the Court had original jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s federal claims brought under Title VII, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s pendent state law claims, see 42 U.S.C. § 1367(a). ... However, when Plaintiff amended her complaint to remove all federal claims, the Court’s jurisdiction, upon which the supplemental jurisdiction rested, ceased to exist.

In a removed case, an amended complaint that omits all federal-law claims eliminates the basis for federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Riddle v. Omaha Public Schools · filed 2024-11-22

The Court finds Riddle’s requested remand is the proper course of action in this case. ... In Wullschleger, the circuit court explained that the Court has a duty to remand a removed case where the plaintiff’s amended pleading omits any federal-law claims on which the Court’s federal-question and supplemental jurisdiction were based. ... Such is the case here.

Section 1331 no longer supplies federal-question jurisdiction when an amended complaint removes all federal claims.

Bey · filed 2025-12-01

Here, Bey moved to amend his complaint and remove all federal claims. Mot. to Amend. As a result, this Court no longer has subject matter jurisdiction over the action.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over an FMLA claim, and an arbitration agreement does not divest them of that jurisdiction.

Munger v. Cascade Steel Rolling Mills, Inc. · filed 2018-09-18

Typically, the two bases for subject matter jurisdiction are federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. This Court has federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claim alleging a violation of FMLA and may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... Without further direction from the Ninth Circuit, I join the Seventh and Eighth Circuits and hold that enforcement of an arbitration clause is not jurisdictional and thus not properly the subject of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1).

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over Miller Act claims without requiring the plaintiff to file within the Miller Act’s one-year limitations period.

Air Control Technologies, Inc. v. Pre Con Industries, Inc. · filed 2013-06-28

Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over Miller Act claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and § 1331 does not “condition[] its jurisdictional grant” on whether the plaintiff files his claim within the one year limitations period in § 3133(b)(4) of the Miller Act. See id. at 1246.

Section 1331 confers jurisdiction over Miller Act claims without conditioning jurisdiction on compliance with the Act’s one-year limitations period.

U.S.A. ex rel. Liberty Mechanical Services, Inc. v. North American Specialty Insurance · filed 2014-02-21

Thus, while the Act may discuss where a case is heard, “[f]ederal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over Miller Act claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and § 1331 does not ‘condition[ ] its jurisdictional grant’ on whether the plaintiff files his claim within the one year limitations period in § 3133(b)(4) of the Miller Act.”

Section 1331 gives federal courts original jurisdiction over federal claims, but an amended complaint asserting only state-law claims does not invoke that jurisdiction.

Hale v. London · filed 2020-01-17

This Court does not have original federal question jurisdiction over the Proposed Amended Complaint.

Federal-question jurisdiction may be established through a supplemental complaint alleging later events that cure a possible jurisdictional defect in the original complaint.

NCJC, Inc. v. Lawrence · filed 2018-05-08

In this case, the Court is persuaded that the same principles apply to permit Plaintiffs to file a supplemental complaint and attempt to cure any jurisdictional defects purportedly contained in their first Complaint.

Section 1331 permits federal question jurisdiction over claims against a defendant added by amended complaint even when the original complaint did not establish subject matter jurisdiction.

16 Front St., L.L.C. v. Miss. Silicon, L.L.C. · filed 2018-03-30

Though the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the claims against Mississippi Silicon in the initial complaint, it unquestionably had federal question jurisdiction over the claims asserted in the amended complaint against MDEQ. Any defect as to jurisdiction was “cured” as to MDEQ because the amended complaint asserted a basis for federal question jurisdiction, though the initial complaint had not included MDEQ as a party.

Section 1331 allows federal-question jurisdiction based on a voluntary amended complaint alleging a federal claim arising from the same transaction as the original complaint.

Robertson v. Nextel West Corp. · filed 2005-02-01

In this case, the violations of the FCA alleged in the Blando plaintiffs' amended complaint arose out of Nextel's billing the FPCR fee–the same transaction that gave rise to the Blando plaintiffs' original complaint. Therefore, we hold that the amended complaint properly conferred jurisdiction on the district court to approve the settlement.

Section 1331 jurisdiction may be determined from an amended complaint filed as of right before a jurisdictional challenge; the time-of-filing rule does not bar the new federal-question basis.

CONNECTU LLC v. Zuckerberg · filed 2008-04-03

To sum up, we hold that the instant appeal is not moot; that the amended complaint, filed as of right, superseded and replaced the original complaint; that the action was at that point transformed into a federal question case (at least in the circumstances at hand); that the time-of-filing rule does not apply to such a case; and that the district court erred in looking to the original complaint and applying the time-of-filing rule.

Voluntarily amending a removed complaint to assert a federal claim under § 1331 waives the challenge to removal and moots the request for remand to state court.

Retail Property Trust v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America · filed 2014-09-23

The question of whether removal of this matter from state court to federal court was proper is moot, as the Mall waived any claim to remand to state court once it pled § 303 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as a basis for jurisdiction in the SAC.

Section 1331 supplies no federal-question jurisdiction when the operative complaint has eliminated all federal claims before removal becomes effective.

Johnson v. Citibank, N.A. · filed 2014-12-05

Thus the Fifth Amended Complaint was the operative complaint at the time of removal and it contains no federal law claims and, as conceded by Citibank, no basis for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an amended complaint that omits all claims arising under federal law.

Great White North Franchisee Association-USA, Inc. v. Tim Hortons USA, Inc. · filed 2021-07-26

As pleaded by Plaintiff, the operative Second Amended Complaint no longer contained any claims arising under federal law. As such, there was no basis for the Court to exercise original federal question jurisdiction over the Second Amended Complaint.

An amended complaint that raises a federal claim on its face establishes federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331, even when the original complaint raised only state-law claims.

Anjani Sinha Medical P.C. v. Empire HealthChoice Assurance, Inc. · filed 2022-03-31

Plaintiff’s motion to remand is denied, because plaintiff’s amended complaint raises a federal question. Specifically, because that complaint includes an ERISA claim, see Am. Compl. ¶¶41-65, the amended complaint asserts a federal claim “on [its] face,” Caterpillar Inc., 482 U.S. at 392. As a result, federal jurisdiction exists regardless of whether this Court had jurisdiction over plaintiff’s original complaint, which raised only state-law claims, under the principles set out in Davila.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over federal claims in an amended §1983 complaint, including claims against a defendant added after removal.

Simpson v. Vanlanen · filed 2022-08-15

By the time Peters waived service of the summons, this court already had assumed jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s amended complaint under §1331 and the order from the Western District transferring the case to this district. Dkt. No. 14. The court has jurisdiction over all claims in the plaintiff’s amended complaint, not just those also contained in the original complaint filed in state court.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an FMLA claim when the defendant lacks enough employees to qualify as an employer under the FMLA.

Nichols v. All Points Transport Corp. of Michigan, Inc. · filed 2005-03-18

Defendant removed this case on the basis of federal question subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Federal question jurisdiction predicated on the FMLA, however, does not exist where an employer does not employ a sufficient number of employees to come within the ambit of the FMLA’s definition of “employer.”

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction over a federal FMLA claim so it can decide whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief under the FMLA.

Cobb v. Contract Transport, Inc. · filed 2006-06-28

Where, as in the instant case, a plaintiff asserts that the FMLA entitles him to relief, the district court must exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs claim in order to determine whether the plaintiffs interpretation of the FMLA is meritorious.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over FMLA claims that arise under federal law and are neither frivolous nor asserted solely to obtain jurisdiction.

Cobb v. Contract Transp · filed 2006-06-28

In this case, the district court clearly had subject-matter jurisdiction under § 1331. First, Plaintiff asserts claims under federal law, the FMLA, codified at 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-54. Second, as should be clear from the discussion of the merits, infra, Plaintiff’s FMLA claims are neither frivolous and insubstantial, nor made solely for the purpose of obtaining subject-matter jurisdiction. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims arise under federal law, and § 1331 granted the district court subject- matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 jurisdiction over a federal claim is not defeated merely because the claim may fail on the merits.

Pigott v. Sanibel Development, LLC · filed 2007-04-13

Simply stated, Sanibel’s contention that plaintiffs’ ILSFDA claims are legally defective goes to the merits of such claims, and not the jurisdiction of this Court to hear them.

Section 1331 gives a court jurisdiction over a substantial federal claim even when a challenge to the claim’s merits may warrant dismissal for failure to state a claim.

Bell v. HCR Manor Care Facility of Winter Park · filed 2011-06-28

Here, the district court erred by dismissing Bell’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Defendants’ motion to dismiss directly challenged the merits of Bell’s federal claims.

Section 1331 jurisdiction is not defeated by an argument that a pleaded federal claim fails on its merits.

Jacobson v. Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc. · filed 2022-01-28

Defendant argues that Plaintiff could not seriously bring a Section 11 claim because he did not plead that his UWT notes were the subject of the prospectus cited in this complaint. This argument is not jurisdictional because it goes to the validity of Plaintiff’s claim, not to the Court’s power to hear this dispute.

Section 1331 jurisdiction over a federal claim is not defeated merely because the claim may fail on the merits.

BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee, Inc. v. Nicolopoulos (JRG3) · filed 2022-06-30

Defendant cannot argue that this Court lacks jurisdiction simply because Plaintiff’s cause of action will fail.

Section 1331 jurisdiction over an ADA claim is not defeated by objections to the ADA’s employee count, employee status, or qualified individual requirements; those objections concern the merits.

Simmons v. Serenity Outreach Center, LLC · filed 2023-11-13

In sum, the Court finds that each of Serenity’s objections raised in its motion to dismiss are nonjurisdictional, and therefore are not properly asserted under Rule 12(b)(1).

Federal-question jurisdiction over an APA claim does not depend on whether the agency has a clear duty to act; that question goes to the claim’s merits.

Dang v. Mayorkas · filed 2023-11-17

The court adopts that conclusion as persuasive: whether the defendants have a clear duty is a question of “the essential ingredients of a federal claim” under the APA, not “federal-court ‘subject-matter’ jurisdiction over a controversy.”

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over colorable federal claims; whether a defendant is covered by the federal statute can be a merits question rather than a jurisdictional one.

Hannah v. Koman Holdings, LLC · filed 2024-09-05

Relevant here, courts have “federal question” jurisdiction over colorable claims “arising under” the Constitution or laws of the United States. ... Deciding whether KOMAN qualifies as an “employer” is not a jurisdictional inquiry—rather, this highly fact-specific determination goes to the merits of Ms. Hannah’s ADA claim. Accordingly, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Ms. Hannah’s ADA claims and will proceed to evaluate Defendants’ arguments under Rule 12(b)(6).

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a CFAA claim when a challenge to the existence of the claim is addressed under Rule 12(b)(6).

Surgical Associates of Houston, P.A. v. Rensel · filed 2024-09-06

In this situation, the proper disposition of Defendant’s motion is under Rule 12(b)(6) rather than Rule 12(b)(1). ... Thus, the Court finds that federal question jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 18 U.S.C. § 1030 and addresses Defendant’s motion to dismiss under the Rule 12(b)(6) standard.

When § 1331 jurisdiction is alleged, failure to plead state action for a § 1983 claim is a merits issue under Rule 12(b)(6), rather than a jurisdictional issue under Rule 12(b)(1).

Spikes v. Car Toys, Inc. · filed 2024-09-10

However, GEO’s main argument—that plaintiffs may not maintain a claim against GEO pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because GEO is not a state actor— is properly raised under Rule 12(b)(6), not Rule 12(b)(1).

Section 1331 gives a court jurisdiction over a federal-law unreasonable-delay claim; whether the plaintiff has stated a plausible claim is a merits question.

Akter v. Flook · filed 2025-02-28

The Court has jurisdiction over this case because Akter’s unreasonable-delay claim arises under federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and she has standing to bring it. ... Neither of those arguments go to the Court’s jurisdiction; both are arguments on the merits.

Section 1331 jurisdiction over a federal statutory claim does not depend on proving every element of that claim; whether the defendant is a consumer reporting agency is an FCRA merits question.

Foley v. IRBsearch, LLC · filed 2025-03-28

Significantly, however, whether Defendant qualifies as a “consumer reporting agency” or “CRA” is not a jurisdictional question, but rather is merely an element of the FCRA claim.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims for Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance benefits because those claims arise under federal law on the face of the complaint.

Cotton v. Prudential Insurance Company of America · filed 2005-05-02

Thus, because this cause of action was created by federal law, and it involves substantial federal questions, the federal courts have jurisdiction under Title 28, United States Code, Section 1331.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over postjudgment claims seeking to impose a federal judgment on nonparties for conduct unrelated to the underlying federal violation.

Shaw v. AAA Engineering & Drafting Inc. · filed 2005-06-08

And, because Shaw is not asserting liability for the underlying FCA judgment “ directly against [the additional individuals] based upon [their] direct role in the [FCA] violation[s],” id. , federal question jurisdiction cannot provide the separate basis.

Section 1331 does not require Congress to have territorial jurisdiction over a place before a federal court may hear a claim arising from an alleged violation of U.S. law there.

Canadian St. Regis Band of Mohawk Indians v. New York · filed 2005-06-08

Congress need not have “territorial jurisdiction” over a foreign nation to confer onto a federal court “subject matter jurisdiction” over cases arising from alleged violations of United States law that occur in that nation.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over an application for a stay of execution under the All Writs Act when the court no longer has jurisdiction over the underlying case.

In Re: Clarence Edward Hill · filed 2006-01-24

The Act does not make the application for a stay (such as the one Hill presents) a civil action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331; rather, it empowers a federal court – in a case in which it is already exercising subject matter jurisdiction – to enter such orders as are necessary to aid it in the exercise of such jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a city even when the city cannot be sued under § 1983.

Amen v. City of Dearborn · filed 1973-08-14

However, this does not prevent individual City officials from being sued under § 1983, and the court would still have jurisdiction over the City under § 1331.

Section 1331(a) does not provide jurisdiction over a municipality for a Fourteenth Amendment damages claim when no implied cause of action exists.

Allison v. City of Live Oak · filed 1978-05-12(a)

In summary the Court concludes that no jurisdiction exists over the City of Live Oak either under § 1983 or 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction is subject to the probate exception, which bars federal courts from administering an estate or disposing of property in a state probate court’s custody.

Jones, Lois v. Brennan, Thomas · filed 2006-08-14

The implication is that the exceptions were probably intended to apply to federal-question cases too. And there is no indication that the current formula in both jurisdictional statutes—“all civil actions,” 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a)—was intended to repeal the exceptions.

The probate exception does not bar federal-question jurisdiction over tort claims merely because the relief conflicts with concluded probate proceedings, when the claims seek neither purely probate relief nor property in a state court’s custody.

Leskinen v. Halsey · filed 2014-06-27

Nothing in the record demonstrates that Leskinen seeks to reach a res in the custody of a state court. Insofar as she sues for racketeering, common law fraud, willful negligence, and negligent misrepresentation, the relief sought may be at odds with concluded state probate proceedings, but the claims do not themselves ask the district court to administer an estate, probate a will, or perform another purely probate matter. See generally Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293, 312 (2006) (stating that “widely recognized tort” claim seeking in personam judgment for interference in inheritance was not purely probate). In such circumstances, we cannot conclude that federal jurisdiction is lacking.

Federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 is subject to the probate exception when a federal claim for diminished inheritance would require an accounting of an estate still in probate.

Glassie v. Doucette · filed 2021-09-14

But to the extent that Georgia seeks compensation for an allegedly adverse impact on her share of the estate, the analysis that renders the probate exception applicable is the same for the RICO count.

Federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 is subject to the probate exception when adjudicating a claim would interfere with a state probate court’s control of property.

Fitch v. American Electric Power System Comprehensive Medical Plan · filed 2021-12-02

Federal courts are permitted to “exercise subject matter jurisdiction over ‘all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.’” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 505 (2006) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1331). This broad authorization to exercise jurisdiction over “federal questions,” however, comes with various caveats. One such caveat is the “probate exception,” which strips federal courts of subject matter jurisdiction over otherwise- justiciable claims if the claim’s adjudication would (i) require the court to probate a will or administer an estate or (ii) “interfere with the probate proceedings or assume general jurisdiction of the probate or control of the property in the custody of [a] state court.” Markham v. Allen, 326 U.S. 490, 494 (1946). ... Accordingly, the Court finds that the probate exception deprives this Court of subject matter jurisdiction over the entirety of AEP’s Complaint.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction is subject to the probate exception when the requested relief would require a federal court to annul or administer a decedent’s estate.

Wells v. Mecklenburg County Clerk Of Probate Estates · filed 2023-10-18

Furthermore, dismissal is appropriate as to all named Defendants because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Although Plaintiff sues under federal causes of action (Doc. No. 1), the Supreme Court has articulated a “probate exception” to the federal question jurisdiction extended to Article III courts by 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when independent nonfederal theories support relief, even if another theory requires federal law.

EFCO Corp. v. Iowa Ass'n of Business and Industry · filed 2006-08-23

One of the three theories of the fiduciary duty claim may require reference to or resolution of federal law, but ABI has not demonstrated that federal law is essential to the other two theories. EFCO may obtain the relief it seeks—a judgment that the class is entitled to the proceeds—without proving that ABI owed an ERISA fiduciary duty to transfer the proceeds.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim supported by an independent state-law theory, even when another theory raises a federal issue.

Bolden v. KB HOME · filed 2008-07-24

Even assuming that Plaintiffs reliance on the USPAP is a federal issue, federal jurisdiction does not attach because Plaintiffs UCL claim is based on alternative state and federal theories.

Federal-question jurisdiction does not attach when a claim has an independent state-law theory that does not require federal law, even if another theory does.

Herbst · filed 2026-05-04

One such category is a dispute based on a federal question—a case “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Here, because federal law is not a necessary element to both theories of a contract claim, the contract claim isn’t completely preempted.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims arising under the IDEA; timely filing is a condition to success, not a limit on that jurisdiction.

Farzana K., Individually and as Next Friend of S.K. v. Indiana Department of Education · filed 2007-01-04

Yet whether federal jurisdiction exists is a matter of federal law, and there is no doubt about the source of the district court’s power: 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which authorizes federal courts to entertain claims arising under federal law, including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Timely filing may be a condition to success, but it is not a jurisdictional requirement in federal court.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction for a Medicare claim when the Medicare Act provides no avenue for judicial review of that claim.

Actn Alli Sr Ctzn v. Leavitt, Michael · filed 2007-04-17

As the Medicare statute appears to provide no avenue for judicial review of the Alliance’s § 1395gg waiver claim, we apply the rule of Michigan Academy and Illinois Council and hold that the district court had jurisdiction over that claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a Medicare claim when the Medicare Act provides no avenue for judicial review of that claim.

Action Alliance of Senior Citizens v. Leavitt · filed 2007-04-17

As the Medicare statute appears to provide no avenue for judicial review of the Alliance’s § 1395gg waiver claim, we apply the rule of Michigan Academy and Illinois Council and hold that the district court had jurisdiction over that claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a Medicare Act claim under the no-review-at-all exception only when the agency process would completely preclude judicial review.

Confirm Laboratory LLC v. Becerra · filed 2024-03-28

As to the “no review at all” exception, federal question jurisdiction is available under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 when going through the Section 405 appeals process “would not simply channel review through the agency[] but would mean no review at all.” ... Because Plaintiff has not demonstrated that channeling review through the agency would mean no review at all, the “‘no review at all” exception does not apply.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a Medicare claim when channeling it through the agency would completely preclude judicial review.

Brooks Home Care Services Inc v. Becerra · filed 2024-03-29

As to the “no review at all” exception, federal question jurisdiction is available under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 when going through the Section 405 appeals process “would not simply channel review through the agency[] but would mean no review at all.” Fam. Rehab., 886 F.3d at 501, 504 (quoting J/1. Council, 529 U.S. at 17, 19).

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over an insurer’s reimbursement claim based on contractual rights created by a federally required policy endorsement.

INSURANCE CORP. OF NEW YORK v. Monroe Bus Corp. · filed 2007-06-14

Nonetheless, I conclude that federal question jurisdiction exists over InsCorp’s claims in this case.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a legal-malpractice negligence claim that raises no federal or constitutional claim.

Falcetta v. Chapman · filed 2007-06-19

However, his allegations of “legal ... malpractice” demonstrate that his claim is for negligence, which does not give rise to a claim under federal or constitutional law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

A complaint suggesting legal malpractice without presenting a federal question does not establish jurisdiction under Section 1331.

Greely, Jr. v. Leefer · filed 2014-12-17

Plaintiff does not identify a cause of action but the allegations suggest legal malpractice. ... The complaint does not present a federal question, and the amount in controversy is well below the minimal amount for exercising diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a legal malpractice claim based on counsel’s handling of an underlying copyright case when the federal issue is not substantial to the federal system as a whole.

Exceller Software Corp. v. Dine · filed 2019-12-05

The facts of this case, however, render it, as Defendants urge, on “all fours” with Gunn. ... And that alleged failure creates the predicate “case” missing in Solar Dynamics. Plaintiffs’ objection as to federal question jurisdiction, then, is also overruled.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over legal malpractice claims because they do not arise under federal law.

Delaney v. City of Albany · filed 2019-12-16

Legal malpractice claims do not arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” and, thus, do not invoke federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a medical malpractice claim.

Sampson v. Pinkney · filed 2020-02-28

At most, plaitniff’s allegations may state a claim for medical malpractice (negligence). ... Such a claim does not give rise to federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction over a legal malpractice claim when the only federal issue is a hypothetical assessment of the underlying federal case that fails the third and fourth Grable requirements.

MAIER v. PARKINS · filed 2020-10-08

As in Gunn, the only federal issue here is the consideration of whether there was a viable cause of action in the underlying federal case. Also, as in Gunn, any court to address this issue would be doing so only hypothetically, which the Gunn Court clearly explained does not meet the third and fourth Grable requirements.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over legal malpractice claims arising under state law.

Tuduj v. Cooney · filed 2021-08-24

However, Plaintiff’s claims do not arise under the Constitution or federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. His Complaint concerns allegations of legal malpractice claims, which are state law claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a legal malpractice action that does not arise under federal law.

Kizer v. Gill · filed 2022-09-29

Based on the allegations of the Complaint, Plaintiff seeks to bring a legal malpractice action against his former attorney, defendant Gill. As such, the instant action does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, so federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is inapplicable.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law legal malpractice claims that do not depend on resolving a substantial question of federal law.

Sarner v. Fillas · filed 2022-12-08

There is no federal question jurisdiction over legal malpractice claims because they are predicated upon violations of state law, and therefore, do not “depend[] on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.”

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a legal malpractice claim arising under state law.

Weekly v. Bilbrew · filed 2023-08-17

Legal malpractice claims are questions of state law and do not support federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction over legal malpractice claims when the complaint alleges no facts showing that the claims arise under federal law.

Tanser v. White & Case Law Firm · filed 2024-09-05

Plaintiff invokes federal question jurisdiction, but the facts alleged do not demonstrate that her claims arise under federal law. Her assertions instead suggest that she is attempting to bring claims for legal malpractice. Such claims arise under state law, not federal law. Accordingly, the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction of this action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when allegations that a private attorney mishandled a lawsuit suggest only a state-law malpractice claim.

King v. DePaola · filed 2024-11-13

Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant, a private attorney, failed to properly represent her in a matter in this court fails to suggest a basis for a federal claim. ... The Court therefore does not have federal question jurisdiction of this matter.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a legal-malpractice claim merely because the underlying representation involved a Title VII case.

Thomas v. Lescht · filed 2025-02-03

In her Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asserts federal question jurisdiction because the case “is about legal malpractice of a Title VII Civil Rights employment case.” Am. Compl. ¶ 1. That nexus is insufficient. Federal question jurisdiction only exists if a well-pleaded complaint establishes that “federal law creates the cause of action asserted” or the case necessarily raises a substantial and actually disputed federal question.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over legal malpractice claims arising under state law when the complaint raises no colorable federal claim.

Lucce v. Inwald · filed 2025-10-06

Plaintiff’s Complaints, even construed liberally, do not raise any colorable federal claim to confer federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over legal malpractice claims that raise no colorable federal claim.

Lucce v. Sim and DePaola, LLP · filed 2025-10-06

Plaintiff’s Complaints, even construed liberally, do not raise any colorable federal claim to confer federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a legal malpractice claim based on a breach of attorney-client privilege.

FALLAS v. DIGERONIMO · filed 2024-03-26

Plaintiff’s recourse for a breach of the attorney-client privilege is a legal malpractice claim, and a legal malpractice claim does not give rise to a federal question.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a petition to vacate an arbitration award when the underlying claims arise under the FLSA.

DirecTV, LLC v. Arndt · filed 2013-10-22

In this case, the district court had federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the Technicians’ claims arose under a federal statute—the FLSA.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a claim whose right to relief depends on whether a defendant exceeded authority granted by a federal court order.

EBI-Detroit, Inc. v. City of Detroit · filed 2008-05-22

Therefore, EBI’s “right to relief” against Kilpatrick turns on whether Kilpatrick exceeded the authority granted to him by the federal court order. The order was issued by a federal court, and therefore the interpretation of that order is a question of federal law. EBI cannot recover under count 14 of its complaint unless Kilpatrick violated federal law, so we have a classic federal question and therefore subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts original federal-question jurisdiction over an IDEA attorney’s fees claim because it arises under a federal statute.

Gray v. D.C. Public Schools · filed 2010-02-25

This Court has original, federal question subject matter jurisdiction over claims arising under federal statutes. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Because Plaintiff makes a claim under the IDEA, a federal statute, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claim, and removal on this basis was appropriate.

A plaintiff does not establish federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 by referring to an unidentified treaty without showing that the claims arise under a treaty of the United States.

Chosen v. Office of Attorney General of State of Texas · filed 2020-06-18

While the Complaint refers to a “Friendship Treaty,” it is unclear to which treaty Plaintiff is referring and whether his claims arise under any treaty of the United States. ... Based upon the record, Plaintiff has not carried his burden of establishing the existence of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, this case will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over claims arising under the LMRA and NLRA.

Kristiansen v. Metropolitan Transit Authority · filed 2023-03-02

Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this action arises under two federal statutes –- the LMRA and the NLRA.

Section 1331 gives a federal court jurisdiction when a fair reading of the complaint shows that the plaintiff asserts a claim under federal law.

Ajjahnon v. Miller's Ale House, Inc. · filed 2025-10-01

Federal question jurisdiction exists where a plaintiff pleads a claim “arising under” federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... A fair reading of those allegations is that Plaintiff asserts a claim or claims under the ADA against the Defendant. I therefore conclude this case was properly removed based on this Court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a dispute arises under a federal court order.

New York State Ass'n for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Carey · filed 1977-09-20

Nor is there federal question jurisdiction simply because a federal court order requires the Department to do something which the union, until now not a party to the action, asserts would be in violation of state law. A question arising under a federal court order does not arise under “the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

Section 1331 gives district courts subject matter jurisdiction when a complaint alleges a claim arising under a federal statute.

Cherokee Express, Incorporated v. Cherokee Express, Incorporated · filed 1991-01-24

When there is an allegation, as here, that the plaintiff's claim arises under a federal statute, such as the Interstate Commerce Act, the district court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331, the catchall federal question provision.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims arising from conduct involving a federal settlement agreement when the claims implicate the federal court’s decree.

Marshall v. American General Life & Accident Insurance · filed 2001-10-18

Since the Marshalls are pursuing a state claim for conduct involving a federal Settlement Agreement, their claims “arise under” federal law, and are therefore, removable under the statutes and this Court’s ancillary and retained jurisdiction.

Federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 extends to ancillary post-judgment collection proceedings, and a state procedural rule cannot divest the federal court of that jurisdiction.

Laborers' Pension Fund v. Pavement Maintenance, Inc. · filed 2008-08-29

The district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction was based on the federal-question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331; the federal questions before the court arose under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), in particular the provisions that entitled the Funds to their contributions. ... The district court had ancillary jurisdiction over the post-judgment proceedings, and Fed. R.Civ.P. 69(a) directed it to state law for the mechanics of the collection process. State rules of procedure cannot negate subject-matter jurisdiction arising from a federal statute and federal question.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction is not lost through the operation of a state procedural rule governing post-judgment collection proceedings.

Laborers' Pension v. Pavement Maintenance · filed 2008-08-29

The district court had subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and it did not lose that power through anything associated with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 277(f).

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction on district courts, so reassigning a case between judges does not affect the court’s jurisdiction.

McKinzy, Sr. v. Murguia · filed 2010-04-01

Moreover, jurisdiction is conferred on courts, not judges. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”). Thus the reassignment could not have affected the court’s jurisdiction.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction continues when a district court administratively closes a case for arbitration, allowing it to hear a motion to vacate in that case.

Freeman v. Pittsburgh Glass Works LLC · filed 2013-03-06

The court indisputably had federal-question jurisdiction to consider his initial complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... As will soon be clear, the District Court never lost jurisdiction because it administratively closed the case.

Section 1331 allows a federal claim to proceed without first satisfying a state medical review panel requirement.

Smith v. State of Indiana · filed 1995-10-27

The plaintiff has stated a claim against the defendant under a federal law, pursuant to this court’s federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The defendant may not use the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act’s requirement of presentation of claims to a medical review panel as a means to trump the plaintiffs claim under federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law bill of discovery merely because the discovery might support a future federal claim.

Mesia v. Florida Agricultural & Mechanical University School of Law · filed 2009-03-16

As it is a state law cause of action, jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction) is not apparent, and Plaintiff has not pled any facts which would establish the existence of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. ... Even assuming, for purposes of this motion, the truth of Plaintiffs suspicions, the existence of a possible cause of action to be brought at some time in the future does not establish subject matter jurisdiction over the existing Petition for discovery.

Section 1331 does not give a district court jurisdiction to review another district judge’s decisions made in a judicial capacity.

Wiley v. Wilkins · filed 2015-09-29

This Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this case because it cannot review the decisions made by another district court judge in his judicial capacity.

Section 1331 does not give a federal district court jurisdiction to review the decisions of another federal district court.

Hall v. United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana · filed 2012-04-16

A federal district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review the decisions of another federal district court.

Section 1331 does not give a federal district court subject matter jurisdiction to review the decisions of another district court.

Lasko v. McAvoy · filed 2012-01-20

Furthermore, a federal district court ... lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review the decisions of another district court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332 (general jurisdictional provisions); Fleming v. United Slates, 847 F. Supp. 170, 172 (D.D.C. 1994), cert. denied 513 U.S. 1150 (1995).

Section 1331 does not give a federal district court jurisdiction to review another federal district court’s decision.

Dewilliams v. Holder · filed 2011-03-22

A federal district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review the decisions of another federal district court.

Section 1331 does not give a district court appellate jurisdiction to review judgments of other federal courts.

Howard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio · filed 2009-03-30

Although Plaintiff mistakenly asserts that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides this court with “jurisdiction over other district court’s orders,” Compl. ¶ 31, this is not an appellate Court and the Court lacks jurisdiction to review the judgments of other federal courts.

Section 1331 does not give a district court jurisdiction to review the decisions, or lack of a decision, of another court.

Robertson v. Commonwealth of Kentucky · filed 2009-05-08

This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review the decisions (or lack thereof) of another court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332 (general jurisdictional provisions); Fleming v. United States, 847 F. Supp. 170, 172 (D.D.C. 1994), cert. denied 513 U.S. 1150 (1995).

Section 1331 does not give a federal district court jurisdiction to review the decisions of another court.

Rasheed v. Winston · filed 2010-12-09

The federal district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review the decisions of another court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332 (general jurisdictional provisions); Fleming v. United States, 847 F. Supp. 170, 172 (D.D.C. 1994), cert. denied 513 U.S. 1150 (1995).

Section 1331 does not give a district court power to review another federal court’s decisions or remove another federal judge from office.

Caldwell v. Kagan · filed 2011-04-18

However, a federal district court has no power to review the decisions of another federal court, much less to remove another federal judge from office.

Section 1331 does not give a district court jurisdiction to review decisions of another federal court.

Wherry v. Administrative Office of the United States Courts & Office of the General Counsel · filed 2011-06-29

First, this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the decisions of another federal court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332 (general jurisdictional provisions); Fleming v. United States, 847 F. Supp. l70, 172 (D.D.C. 1994), cert. denied 513 U.S. 1150 (1995).

Section 1331 does not give a federal district court jurisdiction to review the decisions of another federal district court.

West v. Roberts · filed 2011-07-26

A federal district court, however, lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review the decisions of another federal district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 1332 (general jurisdictional provisions); Fleming v. United States, 847 F.Supp. 170, 172 (D.D.C. 1994), cert. denied 513 U.S. 1150 (1995).

Section 1331 does not give a federal district court jurisdiction to review another federal court’s decisions.

Adams v. U.S. Attorneys Office · filed 2011-08-03

As a general rule applicable here, a federal district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review the decisions of another federal court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332 (general jurisdictional provisions); Flemirzg v. United States, 847 F. Supp. 170, 172 (D.D.C. 1994), cerl. denied 513 U.S. 1 150 (1995).

Section 1331 generally does not give a federal district court jurisdiction to review decisions of other courts.

Hysell v. State of California · filed 2012-05-22

A federal district court is not a reviewing court and generally lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review the decisions of other courts. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332 (general jurisdictional provisions); Fleming v. United States, 847 F. Supp. 170, 172 (D.D.C. 1994), cert. denied 513 U.S. 1150 (1995).

Section 1331 does not give a federal district court jurisdiction to review the final determinations of other courts.

Kissi v. United States · filed 2012-10-31

A federal district court is not a reviewing court and, thus, lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review the final determinations of other courts.

Section 1331 does not give a federal district court jurisdiction to review decisions of other courts.

Moran v. Battey · filed 2012-12-27

First, a federal district court is not a reviewing court and, thus, lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review the decisions of other courts.

Section 1331 does not authorize a district court to review decisions of another district court or a higher federal court.

Schanck v. Clinton · filed 2013-07-29

This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review the decisions of another district court and those of a higher federal court.

Section 1331 does not give a district court jurisdiction to review a federal court of appeals ruling.

Wattleton v. Dodrill · filed 2013-09-06

Plaintiff thus appears to challenge the Fourth Circuit’s ruling, a matter over which this Court lacks jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not give a federal district court jurisdiction to review the orders of another federal district court.

Hirsch v. United States Marshals Service · filed 2013-09-26

Plaintiff seeks an order from this Court to "declare the underlying judgment void for lack of jurisdiction," Compl, at 3, but this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the orders of another district court.

Section 1331 does not give a federal district court jurisdiction to review decisions of other Article III courts.

Fisch v. United States Government · filed 2013-12-20

Jurisdiction is wanting because a federal district court is not a reviewing court and, thus, lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review the decisions of other Article III courts.

Section 1331 does not give a federal district court jurisdiction to review another federal district court's denial of relief.

Nickerson v. United States of America · filed 2014-02-18

In addition, to the extent that the petitioner is seeking review of the denial of relief by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, see Pet. 1 12, jurisdiction is wanting because this Court is not a reviewing court.

Section 1331 does not give a district court jurisdiction to review decisions of another district court or a higher federal court.

Robinson v. King · filed 2014-05-28

This Court is not a reviewing court and, thus, lacks subject rnatterjurisdiction to review the decisions of another district court or a higher federal court.

Section 1331 does not authorize a district court to review another federal district court’s or a federal court of appeals’ decisions rejecting collateral challenges to a sentence.

Morris v. United States Sentencing Commission · filed 2014-07-31

The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review the foregoing decisions, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332 (general jurisdictional provisions); Fleming v. United States, 847 F. Supp. 170, 172 (D.D.C. 1994), cert. denied 513 U.S. 1150 (1995), and otherwise finds that plaintiff has stated no claim for declaratory relief.

Section 1331 does not give a district court jurisdiction to review the decisions of other district courts.

Mellema v. O'Rourke · filed 2014-10-29

But this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review the decisions of other district courts.

Section 1331 does not authorize a district court to review the decisions of another federal district court or compel it to act.

Ortiz v. Pratter · filed 2015-04-03

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania and this Court have the same jurisdiction conferred by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. This Court can neither review the decisions of its sister court nor compel it to act.

Section 1331 does not give a district court jurisdiction to review the propriety of another district court’s decision.

Cobb v. United States · filed 2015-05-19

But the district court’s prior adjudication of the same constitutional issue underlying this action, i.e., the alleged ex post facto violation, has preclusive effect under the collateral estoppel doctrine, and this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the propriety of that decision. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332 (scope of jurisdiction for all district courts); United States v. Choi, 818 F. Supp. 2d 79, 85 (D.D.C. 2011) (“[A]s a district court is a trial level court in the federal judicial system[,] [i]t generally lacks appellate jurisdiction over other judicial bodies, and cannot exercise appellate mandamus over other courts.”) (citations omitted).

Section 1331 does not give a district court jurisdiction to reconsider another federal district court’s decisions.

Atchison v. U.S. District Courts · filed 2016-05-27

This Court’s jurisdiction is drawn from the same statutory sources as its sister courts, both in this District and elsewhere. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332; ... Therefore, this Court has no subject matter jurisdiction to reconsider the decisions of other federal district courts.

Section 1331 does not give a district court jurisdiction to review determinations of other federal courts.

Smith v. Mbi Inc. · filed 2019-04-30

This court lacks jurisdiction to review the determinations of other federal courts.

Section 1331 does not give a district court jurisdiction to review judgments issued by another federal district court or a federal court of appeals.

Van Kush v. 10th Circuit executive/administrative Office of the Judges (Ao) · filed 2020-10-15

As it appears that the petitioner seeks review of the propriety of the judgments issued by the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, or United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, this Court lacks such jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332 (scope of jurisdiction for all district courts); Cobb v. United States, 104 F. Supp. 3d 61, 65 (D.D.C. 2015); United States v. Choi, 818 F. Supp. 2d 79, 85 (D.D.C. 2011) (“[A]s a district court is a trial level court in the federal judicial system[,] [i]t generally lacks appellate jurisdiction over other judicial bodies, and cannot exercise appellate mandamus over other courts.”) (citations omitted).

Section 1331 does not give a district court jurisdiction to review decisions of a federal appellate court or direct its staff.

Favors v. United States Court of Appeals · filed 2022-05-06

This federal district court has no authority to direct the actions of or review decisions made by a federal appellate court and its staff. As a general rule, applicable here, a federal district court lacks jurisdiction to review the decisions of other courts.

Section 1331 confers subject-matter jurisdiction over a nonfrivolous sentence-reduction motion requiring interpretation of federal sentencing law even when the defendant is ineligible for relief.

United States v. Davis (Johnson) · filed 2013-10-15

Because Johnson’s motion presented a nonfrivolous claim requiring interpretation of section 3582(c)(2) and the Commission’s Guidelines and policy statements, it arose under federal law, see Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 681-85 (1946), and subject matter jurisdiction was conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over state-law claims asserting ownership rights in patents and trademarks when state contract and fiduciary principles govern and no actually disputed and substantial federal issue arises.

Kirk v. Palmer · filed 2014-05-02

Based on the well-established body of case law, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ state law claims asserting ownership rights in a pending patent and trademarks do not raise any “actually disputed and substantial” federal issues, and therefore, do not arise under federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over inventorship disputes concerning patents that have not yet issued.

Camsoft Data Systems, Inc. v. Southern Electronics Supply, Inc. · filed 2014-06-19

Similarly, and notwithstanding the inherently federal nature of inventorship, district courts must dismiss premature questions of inventorship for lack of jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a Magnuson-Moss warranty claim that fails to meet the Act's $50,000 amount-in-controversy requirement.

Burzlaff v. Thoroughbred Motorsports Incor · filed 2014-07-10

But federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is not available here. A warranty claim under the Magnuson-Moss Act may be brought in either state or ... federal court, but for the federal court to have jurisdiction under the Act, the amount in controversy must equal or ex- ceed “the sum or value of $50,000 (exclusive of interest and costs) computed on the basis of all claims to be determined in this suit.”

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over an MMWA claim even when the complaint does not allege an amount in controversy meeting the MMWA’s federal-court threshold.

de Anda v. General Motors LLC · filed 2025-10-15

It should be axiomatic that a claim brought under the aegis of a cause of action Congress authorized arises under federal law within the meaning of § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a private HEAL loan collection action where federal law creates no cause of action and the contract dispute presents no substantial federal question.

HICA Education Loan Corp. v. Rodriguez · filed 2014-07-21

But apart from prescribing that (admittedly federally regulated) contractual regime, nothing in the HEAL statute or its regulations suggests that Congress- intended to create a federal cause of action (implied or otherwise) to collect on HEAL loan. ... Here, HICA’s breach-of-contract claim falls, without serious question, outside this ‘“special and small category’ of cases in which a state law cause of action can give rise to federal-question jurisdiction because the claim involves important federal issues.” ... HICA, for instance, does not challenge the meaning of the HEAL statute or its regulations.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over an action to collect on a HEAL program promissory note when the claim arises under state contract law and requires no resolution of a substantial federal issue.

Hica Education Loan Corp. v. Rivera · filed 2014-11-04

The Court agrees with the district courts in this Circuit cited above in that plaintiffs claims for recovery on the promissory note were not created by federal law and do not require the Court to analyze a substantial federal issue.

Section 1331 covers a civil action for return of property brought under Criminal Rule 41(g) after the criminal proceedings have ended.

United States v. Maillet · filed 2014-07-23

As Maillet’s criminal proceedings had ended, the district court’s order properly construed his Rule 41(g) motion for return of property as a civil action arising under § 1331.

Equitable relief under § 1331 to recover forfeited property is unavailable when a direct appeal provides an adequate remedy at law.

Haberman v. United States · filed 2015-02-24

“Relief under Rule 41(g) or in a 28 U.S.C. § 1331 action is unavailable if the litigant has an adequate remedy at law and will not suffer irreparable injury if relief is denied.” ... Because Haberman had an adequate legal remedy available to him, relief under Rule 41(g) or an independent civil action was unavailable to him.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over criminal cases, including traffic citation prosecutions.

Bey · filed 2026-06-24

But this Court has been clear that § 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over criminal cases. ... So this Court lacks federal-question subject matter jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over a separate action to impose an ERISA judgment on a non-judgment debtor through single-employer, alter-ego, or successor-liability theories without an independent ERISA claim.

NEW JERSEY BUILDING LABORERS STATEWIDE BENEFIT FUNDS AND THE TRUSTEES THEREOF v. LLANOS MAINTENANCE SERVICE · filed 2019-08-28

Plaintiffs’ complaint raises three theories of recovery: the single employer doctrine, the alter-ego doctrine, and the successor liability doctrine. None alleges an independent cause of action under ERISA. ... For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment is denied for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the complaint is dismissed.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over an action to enforce a federal judgment when no federal statute, constitutional question, or treaty is implicated.

Winter v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. · filed 2014-08-20

This enforcement action also does not implicate a federal question. The parties point to no federal statute, constitutional question, or treaty that is implicated by this action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a suit seeking to collect an earlier federal statutory judgment from new defendants without alleging a new federal violation.

Messer v. Garrison Investment Group, LP · filed 2026-06-23

However, in this case, Appellants do not allege any new or additional violations of the federal statutes at issue beyond those cited in Messer I. Rather, the present action is solely an effort to collect on the BCI judgment from Messer I because BCI is unable to pay. But, as explained below, the Supreme Court has determined that this is an improper means by which to establish Section 1331 subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law insurance coverage action merely because the underlying suit alleges copyright infringement when no resolution of a federal copyright question is necessary.

Auto-Owners Insurance v. Ergonomics Plus, Inc. · filed 2014-12-05

A straightforward application of the Grable/Gunn test here demonstrates that ■ Auto-Owners’ declaratory judgment action does not arise under federal copyright law. First, no resolution of a federal copyright question is necessary in the instant action.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over an FLSA claim even when the defendant disputes whether the plaintiff is covered by the Act.

Kniffin v. Kendall County, Texas · filed 2022-12-05

Consequently, Kniffin’s assertion of this FLSA cause of action arises under the laws of the United States, and the Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 unless a specific statutory limi- tation on jurisdiction applies.

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction over tort claims against federal contractors arising from the performance of federal procurement contracts.

Delorenzo v. HP Enterprise Services, LLC · filed 2015-02-11

Also under Section 1331, the District of Columbia has subject matter jurisdiction over the tort claims against each of the two federal contractors because the claims “arise out of. the performance of federal procurement contracts.”

Section 1331 grants jurisdiction over claims arising under federal common law governing contracts with the United States, even when federal law borrows state rules.

Yee v. Jewell · filed 2017-01-09

As such, § 1331 contains the requisite jurisdictional grant, and the Department’s arguments pose no bar to this suit.

Section 1331 supports federal-question jurisdiction over a contract claim when the right invoked is created by federal law or the contract is authorized or required by federal law.

(PC) Hand v. Management and Training Corporation · filed 2022-02-11

While certain contracts can give rise to federal question jurisdiction, those scenarios are limited to circumstances where the right invoked by the contract at issue is a “creation[] of federal law,” or where the contract is authorized or required by federal law. ... These claims appear to arise under federal law because the BOP, a federal agency, is party to the contract with MTC, which Plaintiff alleges requires MTC to abide by policy and procedures of the BOP in managing TCI.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the only possible federal claim is moot.

Ruggier v. Go Mart, Inc. · filed 2015-06-01

A moot federal claim cannot provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 governs subject matter jurisdiction over civil actions and does not authorize a criminal defendant to remove a state case to federal court.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Haring · filed 2022-11-18

And, as the District Court noted, §§ 1331 and 1332 pertain to subject matter jurisdiction for civil actions, not for criminal defendants who wish to remove their cases from state court.

Section 1331 governs federal-question jurisdiction in civil cases and does not provide jurisdiction over federal criminal prosecutions.

United States v. Myles · filed 2016-01-06

Additionally, as the court aptly observed, Myles’ motion to dismiss improperly relied on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (2012), which governs federal-question jurisdiction in civil, not criminal, cases.

Section 1331 does not give a district court jurisdiction over a motion to compel filed in a criminal case.

United States v. Garcia-Herrera · filed 2018-07-09

Section 1331 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.” We do not see how this statute would give a district court jurisdiction over a motion to compel filed in a criminal case.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction over civil actions, not criminal prosecutions.

State of Mississippi v. Arnold · filed 2019-07-26

By its terms, § 1331 does not grant jurisdiction over criminal cases.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction only over civil actions, not state criminal prosecutions.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. SMITH · filed 2020-02-10

However, federal question jurisdiction applies only to civil actions.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over civil actions, not state criminal prosecutions.

State Of Florida v. King · filed 2020-04-17

Federal question jurisdiction, however, only applies to civil actions. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441.