28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction when a complaint invokes § 1983 without facts supporting a federal claim.

Davis v. Raso · filed 2023-04-07

Plaintiff does not sufficiently allege facts to establish that the Court has either federal question or diversity jurisdiction. Thus, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires the plaintiff to establish a federal question; invoking federal laws that have no bearing on the alleged facts does not establish jurisdiction.

Emrit v. Jules · filed 2023-07-24

In this case, plaintiff presents several potential federal questions he insists gives the Court jurisdiction. None of them do. ... For these reasons, plaintiff has failed to carry his burden of establishing the existence of federal question jurisdiction in this case.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to show how its cited sources of law present a federal question.

Welch v. Double 00 Shitshow · filed 2023-09-08

Moreover, the Complaint fails to indicate how any of these present a federal question in this suit against wholly private Defendants located in the United States.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges no facts demonstrating a viable federal-law claim.

Westfal v. Westfal · filed 2024-01-02

Because Plaintiff does not allege any facts demonstrating a viable claim under federal law, the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction of this action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction when a complaint invokes federal law but alleges no facts supporting a federal claim.

Styles v. BMW Financial · filed 2024-01-02

Here, Plaintiff invokes the court’s federal question jurisdiction and references trademark claims, which generally arise under federal trademark law, but she alleges no facts suggesting a federal trademark infringement claim or any other viable federal claim. The Court therefore lacks federal question jurisdiction of this action.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a plaintiff invokes the First Amendment against a private corporation.

Washington v. Professional Claims Bureau · filed 2024-01-16

Plaintiff’s mere invocation of the First Amendment does not provide a basis for this Court to exercise federal question jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant.

Section 1331 requires more than conclusory allegations to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Asanov v. Sukeena · filed 2024-03-07

These conclusory allegations as to the court’s subject matter jurisdiction fail to demonstrate the existence of a federal question as a matter of law.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction cannot rest on conclusory assertions that defendants violated federal law or constitutional rights.

Fuller v. Patel · filed 2024-10-16

Conclusory statements that the defendants violated federal law or the plaintiff’s constitutional rights are not sufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal question; unsupported references to constitutional provisions or federal statutes do not establish jurisdiction.

Lovelace v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA · filed 2025-01-10

Although Plaintiff alleges constitutional violations and lists thirteen “counts” referencing a multitude of federal statutes and regulations, Plaintiff alleges no facts to support a claim under the Constitution or any of the enumerated federal statutes or regulations. Thus, federal question jurisdiction has not been sufficiently alleged.

Section 1331 requires a colorable federal claim; unexplained citations to federal laws do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Hazell v. Mitchell · filed 2025-05-09

Citing federal laws while not providing any other details is insufficient to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint invokes federal rights without alleging conduct that could support a nonfrivolous federal claim.

VIGNE v. RMS/PHH MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS INC. · filed 2025-07-07

And Mr. Vigne’s invocation of the “bill of rights” and the “civil rights act of 1964,” without providing any additional context for how they apply, appears “wholly insubstantial and frivolous” given that there are no particular constitutional deprivations or instances of discrimination alleged in the Amended Complaint or accompanying filings.

Section 1331 requires allegations connecting a claim to federal law; merely citing federal law does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

(PS) Windham El v. Renjie · filed 2025-07-10

However, the complaint does not adequately present any federal question. Plaintiff does not describe how either of these laws relate to her complaint or provide facts demonstrating that her claims are valid under federal law.

Section 1331 jurisdiction cannot be established by repeatedly citing federal statutes and rules.

Ward v. Ward · filed 2025-09-03

And, as before, Plaintiff Ward’s attempts to invoke federal question jurisdiction by repeatedly citing to federal statutes and rules are not sufficient.

Section 1331 does not support federal-question jurisdiction when a due process reference and threadbare allegations disclose no discernible federal claim.

Jimenez · filed 2026-01-09

The only possible basis for the Court’s exercise of subject matter jurisdiction is pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 based on Plaintiff’s reference to a “due process” violation. But the factual allegations are too threadbare to decipher the basis for any claim premised on such a violation. Thus, the Complaint is subject to dismissal on jurisdictional grounds.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint’s reference to due process is too vague to identify a federal claim.

Alexander · filed 2026-01-29

The only possible basis for the Court’s exercise of subject matter jurisdiction is pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 based on Plaintiff’s reference to a “due process” violation. But the factual allegations are too threadbare to decipher the basis for any claim premised on such a violation. Thus, the Complaint is subject to dismissal on jurisdictional grounds.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint’s factual allegations are too sparse to identify the basis for its asserted federal claim.

Mills · filed 2026-02-23

The only possible basis for the Court’s exercise of subject matter jurisdiction is pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 based on Plaintiff’s reference to a “due process” violation. But the factual allegations are too threadbare to decipher the basis for any claim premised on such a violation. Thus, the Complaint is subject to dismissal on jurisdictional grounds.

Section 1331 gives federal courts original jurisdiction when federal law creates the cause of action pleaded in the complaint.

STEWART v. LEWIS · filed 2019-09-10

“Federal question jurisdiction exists when the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint establishes that ‘federal law creates the cause of action.’” ... Thus, a federal statute directly “creates the cause of action,” ending the inquiry.

Section 1331 requires a properly pleaded federal cause of action to support federal-question jurisdiction.

(PC) Grubbs v. Sacramento County Jail · filed 2020-09-29

It does not include a properly pled federal cause of action that would permit federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction for a healthcare privacy complaint that identifies no federal cause of action.

VIOLETTE v. PETRECA · filed 2021-09-21

Here, Plaintiff has failed to identify any federal cause of action that would support the Court’s exercise of federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a claim created by federal law; a challenge to whether the claim states a valid basis for relief concerns the merits rather than jurisdiction.

Hogans v. Charter Communications, Inc. · filed 2021-09-24

Charter’s arguments do not implicate the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction but rather whether Hogans has stated a claim upon which this court can grant relief. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, a federal court has “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A claim generally arises under federal law when federal law creates the cause of action.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction depends on a viable federal cause of action.

Johnson v. Belcher · filed 2021-09-29

Since federal question jurisdiction is dependent on a viable federal cause of action, there is no basis for the Court to exercise supplemental 54 ECF 1, ¶ 7. jurisdiction over Hodges-Johnson’s state-law claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a removed action when no pleading identifies a cause of action under federal law.

CARSON CONCRETE CORPORATION v. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL, ORNAMENTAL AND REINFORCED IRONWORKERS LO · filed 2021-11-24

The same conclusion is justified in response to Defendant’s argument this Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. There has been no pleading filed, in state or federal district court, outlining a cause of action pursuant to any federal law.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a claim when federal law creates the asserted cause of action, including a claim under the federal FLSA.

Callwood v. Ferdinand Forest, Inc. · filed 2021-11-26

Having asserted a claim under which federal law creates the cause of action, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint cites federal statutes but alleges no facts supporting a plausible federal cause of action.

Galea v. Law Offices of Cary Alan Cliff · filed 2022-04-29

Absent some allegations to suggest a plausible cause of action under any of those cited federal statutes, there is simply not a sufficient factual basis to support the exercise of federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based on a HIPPA claim when HIPPA provides no private cause of action.

Attia v. Memorial Health · filed 2022-05-04

However, HIPPA does not provide a private cause of action. ... Consequently, Plaintiff does not invoke this Court’s federal question jurisdiction by citing HIPPA.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a defamation claim based solely on § 4101’s definition of defamation, which creates no federal cause of action.

Spung v. Rodriquez · filed 2022-05-09

The Court has “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Spung alleges federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 4101. ... It does not provide a separate federal cause of action. ... Accordingly, the Courts finds there is no federal-question jurisdiction over Spung’s claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because the plaintiff invokes a federal statute that creates no cause of action.

Goodman v. Sharp · filed 2022-07-12

Because Plaintiff does not have a cause of action under the CDA, Section 230(c)(1) cannot be the basis for federal question jurisdiction.

A complaint that alleges no discernible federal cause of action, even when liberally construed, does not establish federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Lee v. Taylor · filed 2022-09-02

As for federal question jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, even construing the Complaint liberally, the Magistrate Judge could not glean a federal cause of action. (R&R, Doc. 4, #100). Having reviewed the Complaint, neither can this Court.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a claim created by the Defend Trade Secrets Act when the claim appears on the face of a well-pleaded complaint.

John Zink Company, LLC v. Robertson · filed 2022-12-09

Here, in asserting a claim for misappropriation of trade secrets under the DTSA, John Zink has satisfied both conditions necessary to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when federal law creates a cause of action pleaded in the complaint.

Napper v. Goodlett · filed 2023-04-10

Count II arises under federal law because it was created by Monell.

Section 1331 gives district courts subject matter jurisdiction when federal law creates the cause of action.

TRUSTEES OF THE IBEW LOCAL 400 WELFARE FUND v. T.E.S.T. TRYLECTRIC ENGINEERING SYSTEMS & TECHNOLOGY, LLC · filed 2023-05-10

Here, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1331 because federal law creates the Fund Plaintiffs’ cause of action.

Section 1331 gives a district court federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts a separate federal cause of action, even if the defendant disputes the claim’s merits.

GENTLES v. BLUE HORIZON INNOVATIONS LLC · filed 2023-09-27

WHEREAS the Court finds that Defendants’ present challenge to federal question jurisdiction is without merit.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff to allege a cause of action arising under federal law to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Yaghoobi v. Vinfen Community Behavioral Health Center · filed 2023-12-29

To invoke this court's subject matter jurisdiction, plaintiff must allege either that this action raises a federal question, in that the cause of action arises under federal law, or that this court has diversity jurisdiction over the matter. ... Yaghoobi’s allegations also do not provide a sufficient basis for federal question jurisdiction or for this court’s subject matter jurisdiction on diversity grounds.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction when the face of a complaint shows that federal law creates the asserted claim.

Intermax Towers, LLC v. Ada County, Idaho · filed 2024-01-11

It is therefore clear “from the face of the complaint” that federal question jurisdiction exists in this case.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when the validity of a cause of action under federal law is in dispute.

Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association v. Attorney General New Jersey · filed 2024-02-14

Whether a party has a valid cause of action under a federal statute presents a federal question, so our inquiry into whether the retired officers have a cause of action under Section 1983 is not jurisdictional.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over a claim arising under the Defend Trade Secrets Act.

JTH Tax LLC v. Cortorreal · filed 2024-03-01

Here, the Plaintiff has alleged subject matter jurisdiction based on a federal question because Plaintifi’s claim under Count Three arises under the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016, 18 U.S.C. § 1836. Therefore, the Court has sufficient basis for federal question jurisdiction and will address the federal claim first.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a debt collection claim when federal law does not create the cause of action.

Rock Creek Capital, LLC v. Johnson · filed 2024-03-01

Federal law does not create Plaintiff’s cause of action and diversity jurisdiction is prohibited because Plaintiff seeks less than $75,000 and Mr. Johnson is a Maryland citizen.

Section 1331 gives a federal court jurisdiction when a complaint pleads a federal law as a cause of action.

AGUILAR-VAZ v. LANTERN HILL INC. BY ERICSON SENIOR LIVING · filed 2024-04-30

As a result, this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction because federal law—the FMLA—is the basis for a cause of action in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction when federal law creates a cause of action pleaded in the complaint.

Yates v. U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for GSR Loan Trust 2006-3F · filed 2024-09-12

This Court therefore has federal question jurisdiction over the Amended Complaint because federal law creates the cause of action for Count 3.

Section 1331 gives a district court federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint containing a federal cause of action.

Guzman v. Graham Packaging Co., L.P. · filed 2024-09-25

Complaints containing a federal cause of action could have originally been filed in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff concedes — nor could she reasonably argue otherwise — that her fourth cause of action for retaliation in violation of the FMLA (29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.) is a federal cause of action that confers upon the Court federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction when federal law creates a cause of action pleaded in the complaint.

Brooks v. Diserens · filed 2025-03-25

Clearly, federal law created this cause of action, and, thus, the Court has “arising under” or federal question jurisdiction over this claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no viable federal cause of action.

Hermann v. Jon · filed 2025-06-18

Because Plaintiffs’ complaint does not allege a viable federal cause of action, it fails to establish a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331’s general grant of federal-question jurisdiction does not itself supply a federal cause of action.

Coburn v. United States · filed 2025-07-02

This court's original jurisdiction extends to cases that “arise under” federal law, but the plaintiff in such a case must also identify some statute creating a federal cause of action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction over claims for which no relevant federal civil cause of action exists.

EL v. HOSPITAL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · filed 2025-08-07

The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over each of Plaintiff’s pled counts because no relevant civil cause of action exists under federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the federal statutes invoked provide no cause of action against the defendant.

Pina v. Pina · filed 2025-09-26

Therefore, because Defendant is a private individual who has not been acting “under color of law,” § 1983 does not provide Plaintiff a cause of action creating subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a claim to arise under federal law to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Grajales · filed 2025-10-14

To invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff’s claims must arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... The Second Amended Complaint does not otherwise suggest a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts a cause of action created by federal law, even if most claims arise under state law.

Coleman · filed 2025-11-04

In contrast, Coleman’s complaint does state a cause of action expressly created by federal law—namely, her civil RICO claim. The Court therefore rejects Plaintiff’s argument on this point.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when federal law creates the asserted cause of action.

Duroseau · filed 2025-11-13

Thus, for federal question jurisdiction, Duroseau must rely on a federal law that creates a cause of action.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts no federal cause of action.

Smith v. Director of Illinois Department of Public Health · filed 2026-01-20

Because the Amended Complaint advances no federal cause of action, the court can’t exercise jurisdiction under § 1331 either.

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

Estate of George T. Hammond v. J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Corp. · filed 2019-11-25

Here, Plaintiff plainly asserted a claim under the FDCPA, a federal cause of action. ... Therefore, the Court concludes that it has federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s FDCPA claim, and it may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state- law claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state fraud claim merely because it references a prior federal judgment or settlement as the source of injury.

Mrs. Blooms Direct Inc. v. Saavedra · filed 2019-09-27

Federal jurisdiction does not lie, however, merely to protect a federal court order or to protect a federal court settlement agreement.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because they concern the settlement of a federal lawsuit.

The State of South Dakota v. National Collegiate Athletic Association · filed 2025-03-28

Because a dispute concerning a settlement agreement’s terms is a dispute under state contract law, see Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 378, the mere fact that the class action is premised upon federal antitrust law cannot be used as a vehicle to establish federal question jurisdiction in this case.

A state-law claim does not arise under § 1331 when it presents no substantial federal question and federal law does not completely preempt it.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v, EONSMOKE LLC · filed 2019-11-07

As there is no substantial federal question and no complete preemption, this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the State’s state law claims against Eonsmoke.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when state-law claims do not necessarily raise a federal issue, even if a later motion or settlement raises one.

Esper v. Standard Fuel Engineering Company · filed 2023-01-10

Having failed to identify a federal issue necessarily raised by Plaintiffs’ claims, Defendants have not met their burden of establishing that this Court has jurisdiction, and thus, remand is required.

Section 1331 does not provide district court jurisdiction over a claim seeking damages for a willful violation of a bankruptcy automatic stay; that claim must be brought in bankruptcy court.

J. J. Cranston Construction Corp. v. The City of New York · filed 2022-04-29

Under the above-referenced Second Circuit precedent, such relief must be sought in Bankruptcy Court. See E. Equip., 236 F.3d at 121; see also Colasuonno, 697 F.3d at 172 n.4. Plaintiffs have pointed to no binding Circuit authority establishing that either Section 1334(b) or Section 1331 provides a basis for this Court’s jurisdiction over this action, particularly in light of Eastern Equipment.

Section 1331 does not give a district court original jurisdiction over a claim for violation of a bankruptcy automatic stay.

Cisse v. 17161 Alva Road Owners Association · filed 2019-11-18

Accordingly, because the claim for violation of U.S. bankruptcy automatic stay, 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) does not support this Court’s jurisdiction, the Court sua sponte , REMANDS the case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over frivolous, duplicative claims that merely repeat claims previously litigated.

McElrath v. City of Cleveland · filed 2019-11-20

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States. ... Duplicative complaints that merely repeat previously litigated claims are frivolous, thereby depriving the Court of subject matter jurisdiction in addition to being subject to dismissal under § 1915(e)(2).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a wholly frivolous claim that fails to present a federal controversy.

(PS) El v. State of California · filed 2020-11-16

However, the Supreme Court has held that federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to consider claims that are “so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of this court, or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy.” ... The undersigned finds plaintiff’s complaint wholly frivolous.

A wholly frivolous claim against a federal judge does not confer federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

BALLERING v. STATE OF UTAH ATTORNEY GENERAL · filed 2021-02-17

That claim, however, is wholly frivolous, and a frivolous claim against a federal judge is not sufficient to confer federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims so devoid of merit that they do not involve a federal controversy.

(PS) Eisner v. Hollister · filed 2022-01-07

As these claims are “completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy,” they cannot proceed.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim that is wholly insubstantial and frivolous, even if it purports to arise under federal law.

Duell Family Trust v. Ford · filed 2024-03-27

Thus, even if Plaintiff’s apparent claim to United States assets arises under federal law, it is “wholly insubstantial and frivolous” and therefore does not give rise to federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a foreclosure complaint based solely on state law to enforce a promissory note and its security interest.

B.A.C Home Loans Service, L.P. v. Koola · filed 2020-04-01

But the complaint and amended complaint reflect that this aciton is based solely on state law, and no federal question exists over a pleading that “merely states a cause of action for enforcement of a promissory note and foreclosure of the associated security interest in real property.” Burbage v. Richburg, 417 F. Supp. 2d 746, 749 (D.S.C. 2006).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over mortgage foreclosure claims because foreclosure of mortgages is not an issue of federal law.

McLemore v. US Bank NA · filed 2019-11-21

Foreclosure of mortgages is not an issue of federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint challenging a state-court mortgage foreclosure presents no federal question.

Babis v. Neighborhood Code Enforcement · filed 2025-07-22

The Seventh Circuit and district courts in this Circuit have long held that a state-court mortgage foreclosure proceeding itself does not raise a federal question. ... It is thus clear that Plaintiff’s Complaint does not present a federal question.

Section 1331 is not satisfied by a mere passing reference to a constitutional right.

Johnson v. Davidson Automotive Group · filed 2022-02-17

However, this mere passing reference to a Constitutional right is insufficient to invoke federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires the complaint to allege an action arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Cleveland v. Keller · filed 2022-02-17

There also is no properly alleged federal question jurisdiction because the Complaint does not allege that this action “aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 permits federal courts to hear claims alleging violations of federal law or the Constitution, but a claim based only on state regulations does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Jackson v. Chippewa Valley Correctional Treatment Facility · filed 2019-11-29

This federal court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claim. Federal courts have limited jurisdiction—they may decide violations of federal laws or the federal Constitution, see 28 U.S.C. §§1331 (federal question), or may decide cases based on state law if the lawsuit is between citizens of different states and the amount at issue is more than $75,000, see 28 U.S.C. §1332 (diversity of citizenship jurisdiction). The plaintiff has not alleged that the defendants violated federal law or the federal Constitution.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to assert a claim based on federal law to invoke federal-question jurisdiction.

LaNier v. City of New York · filed 2020-02-20

To invoke federal question jurisdiction, the complaint must have a claim based on a federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... The instant Complaint fails to conform with Rule 8 and does not suggest any valid basis for this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a claim based on federal law independent of the jurisdictional statute itself.

PINNOCK v. KEYS · filed 2021-01-13

In order to invoke federal jurisdiction under § 1331, however, a plaintiff’s claim must be based on some federal law independent of that statute.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction for a claimed constitutional violation or federal cause of action; alleging neither does not establish jurisdiction.

Williams v. Edwards · filed 2021-04-28

Plaintiff also fails to establish the Court’s jurisdiction to hear his Complaint. “Federal question jurisdiction may be based on a civil action alleging a violation of the United States Constitution or a federal cause of action established by a Congressionally-created expressed or implied private remedy for violations of a federal statute.” City of Huntsville v. City of Madison, 24 F.3d 169, 171-72 (11th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted). Here, Plaintiff has alleged neither a violation of the Constitution nor an infringement of any federal statute.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint identifies no federal-law claim.

AKRAM v. AKRAM · filed 2022-07-06

No federal law claim is identified. See generally 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction over claims against a defendant when the plaintiff identifies no claim against that defendant arising under federal law.

Lavi v. Talwar · filed 2023-05-30

Plaintiff does not identify any claim against Defendant Talwar arising under federal law, and there does not appear to be any basis for federal question jurisdiction of any claims against this defendant.

Section 1331 requires a claim to arise under an underlying source of federal law; invoking the jurisdictional statute alone is insufficient.

COLLINS v. ZATECKY · filed 2023-12-12

The complaint purports to bring Mr. Collins's federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. "But § 1331 itself does not allow the court to hear his case; the complaint must also 'point to an underlying source of federal law' under which the claim arises. Okere v. United States, 983 F.3d 900, 902–03 (7th Cir. 2020). Here, the underlying source is § 1983."

Section 1331 requires a complaint to assert a claim based on federal law to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Adams v. Lawarence · filed 2024-06-26

To establish federal question jurisdiction, the complaint must have a claim based on a federal law.

Section 1331 requires a well-pleaded complaint to present an issue of federal law; citing the federal criminal wire fraud statute does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Handsman · filed 2026-01-21

This criminal statute, however, does not provide a civil remedy nor confer federal question jurisdiction on this Court. Thus, because no federal law (e.g., violations of federal civil statutes, treaties, or the Constitution) is implicated in the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs have not met their burden to establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law contract claim merely because federal law required or regulated the contract.

Local Division 1285, Amalgamated Transit Union v. Jackson Transit Authority · filed 1977-12-23

In summary, plaintiff seeks to enforce, or an interpretation of, asserted contractual rights in this cause. The suit is not basically concerned with the validity or construction of a federal statute or the action taken by an administrative officer or agency under provisions of the federal statute.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a RESPA claim pleaded in a removed action.

Perez v. Wells Fargo USA Holdings, Inc. · filed 2019-12-06

Here, Defendant has properly removed the action and this Court has federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s RESPA claim.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a claim based on private safety standards when the complaint does not show that those standards have the force of federal law.

Yates v. City of Barberton, Ohio · filed 2019-12-09

But there are no allegations from which this Court may infer that those standards have been adopted by Congress or promulgated by any federal agency or department such that they have the force of federal law. ... Thus, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a carrier’s claim for unpaid charges based on a tariff filed with the FCC.

MCI Telecommunications Corporation v. Teleconcepts · filed 1995-12-08

MCI's action is based upon, and draws its life from, the tariff that MCI filed with the Federal Communications Commission. The reasoning of Ivy Broadcasting, and the analogous cases decided under the Commerce Act, see Thurston and Rice, supra, persuade us that the district court did have subject matter jurisdiction over MCI's action, and Teleconcepts' counterclaim. ... 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1331, and 1337 confer subject matter jurisdiction over MCI's claim.

Section 1331 gives a federal district court subject matter jurisdiction over an Eighth Amendment claim for constitutionally adequate mental health care.

Robertson v. Deputy Commissioner · filed 2019-12-30

Thus, Mr. Robertson is proceeding on a claim “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” so the court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims arising under the Constitution, including Fifth Amendment claims.

Sabra v. Pompeo · filed 2020-04-02

Because Mr. Sabra asserts constitutional claims under the Fifth Amendment, see Compl., ECF No. 1 at 14 ¶ 57, this Court’s jurisdiction “aris[es] under the Constitution . . . of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint alleging violations of rights under the U.S. Constitution.

Silver v. Bexar County Sheriff's Office · filed 2020-04-06

In his original and amended complaints, Silver alleged violations of his rights under the U.S. Constitution. These implicate federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The district court therefore did not err in denying Silver’s motion to remand the case to state court.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims arising under the U.S. Constitution.

Reek v. Serier · filed 2021-08-13

Based on these allegations, Reek’s failure-to-protect claims against the Ramsey County Defendants and Officer Boyer clearly arise under the United States Constitution and, therefore, present a federal question. As such, this Court has federal-question jurisdiction over Reek’s federal claims.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over civil actions alleging harm under the United States Constitution.

Flores v. Lewis and Clark County Sheriff's Office · filed 2021-11-02

The alleged harm falls within “civil actions arising under the Constitution” and therefore meets the requirements necessary to establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over claims arising directly under the Constitution.

Mahoney v. United States Capitol Police Board · filed 2023-04-04

Second, the text of § 1331 could not be clearer that district courts have jurisdiction over claims “arising under the Constitution.”

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a colorable claim arising under the Constitution, including a Second Amendment challenge.

Walker v. United States of America · filed 2023-09-19

“A plaintiff properly invokes § 1331 jurisdiction when she pleads a colorable claim ‘arising under’ the Constitution or laws of the United States.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513 (2006). Plaintiff’s Second Amendment challenge raised a federal question arising under the Constitution of the United States.

Section 1331 gives federal courts subject matter jurisdiction over a breach of contract claim arising under a United States treaty.

Vanport International, Inc. v. DFC Wood Products PTY LTD · filed 2024-01-24

The Court also has subject matter jurisdiction over this case because Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim arises under a treaty of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over § 1983 claims alleging violations of federal constitutional rights.

Doe v. Prosper Independent School District · filed 2024-03-14

The Court has federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims because the claims are for alleged violations of the Doe children’s federal constitutional rights and therefore arise under the Constitution.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a complaint alleging a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Ramos, Sr v. Department of Children & Family Services · filed 2024-05-17

This Court therefore has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Plaintiff’s complaint alleges actions arising under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a claim arising directly under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Donohoe Construction Co. v. Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission · filed 1975-07-29

Finding subject matter jurisdiction under section 1343(3) is not essential, however, since the Court does have subject matter jurisdiction over all of the defendants under 28 U.S. C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over claims arising under a treaty of the United States.

COORSTEK KOREA LTD. v. LOOMIS PRODUCTS COMPANY · filed 2022-02-17

We enjoy federal question jurisdiction over this action because CoorsTek’s claims arise under the Treaty.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when the complaint does not necessarily raise a federal issue.

Stillman Consulting Services v. Greene · filed 2020-01-13

In light of the parties’ arguments, the court concludes that a federal issue is not necessarily raised in the Complaint so as to confer federal jurisdiction in this case.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a state-law claim under Grable only when deciding the claim necessarily requires applying a federal rule of decision.

State of Qatar v. First Abu Dhabi Bank PJSC · filed 2020-01-14

The Supreme Court, the Second Circuit, and other federal courts all agree that plaintiffs “necessarily raise” federal issues only if adjudication of their state-law claims require a reviewing court at some point to apply a federal rule of decision.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when a theory of injury can be resolved without deciding a federal issue.

RAGNER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION v. BERARDI · filed 2020-03-16

A state court could find that this injury occurred without necessarily deciding the validity, enforceability, scope, or other federal issue related to the Berardi Patents. Accordingly, RTC’s claims for fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of contract do not necessarily raise a patent issue.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the claim does not necessarily raise a federal issue.

O'Brien v. C.F. Gollott and Son Seafood, Inc. · filed 2020-03-20

Because no federal issue was necessarily raised at the time of removal, the Court lacks jurisdiction and must remand the case to state court.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the federal issue appears only in a defense to a state-law claim.

Healthcare Ventures of Ohio, LLC v. HVO Operations Windup · filed 2020-11-13

And because the clause in the Pledge Agreement is a defense that Defendants raise, it cannot itself be a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a state-law claim under the Grable doctrine only if the claim necessarily raises a federal issue, including when federal law supplies an essential element.

Hopman v. Sunrise Villa Culver City · filed 2021-04-16

No federal issue is “necessarily raised” by Plaintiffs’ complaint because an interpretation of the PREP Act is not an essential element of any of Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law medical negligence claim that does not necessarily raise a federal issue.

Roebuck v. Mayo Clinic · filed 2021-05-10

Contrary to Defendants’ assertions, the Grable test has not been met because Mr. Roebuck’s complaint does not “necessarily raise” a federal issue.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because the complaint references federal law; the claim must necessarily raise a federal issue.

Place v. Chowan University · filed 2021-06-15

At bottom, the references to the FMLA in plaintiff’s complaint do not allow the court to exercise jurisdiction under § 1331 because they, inter alia, fail to meet the requirement that a federal issue is necessarily raised by plaintiff’s cause of action.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the plaintiff may obtain relief without resolving a federal issue, even if some theories involve federal law.

Balderas v. Gilead Sciences, Inc. · filed 2021-07-06

Because New Mexico may very well be entitled to relief independent of federal law, Defendants’ proffered anchors for “arising under” jurisdiction are not necessarily raised.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a state-law claim only when a federal issue is necessary to establish the claim; a potential federal defense does not suffice.

Vlaming v. West Point School Board · filed 2021-08-20

But Vlaming can establish all of his state law claims without resolving any federal questions; it is the defense that may hinge on the Title IX issue.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that do not necessarily raise a federal issue.

Lebow v. Silverado Senior Living, Inc. · filed 2021-09-14

The first question under Gunn is whether a federal issue is “necessarily raised.” Because Plaintiff’s claims do not fall within the scope of the PREP Act, they do not raise a federal issue.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that fall outside the PREP Act because they do not necessarily raise a federal issue.

Khorsandi v. Silverado Senior Living, Inc. · filed 2021-09-14

The first question under Gunn is whether a federal issue is “necessarily raised.” Because Plaintiffs’ claims do not fall within the scope of the PREP Act, they do not raise a federal issue.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a federal Medicaid issue is incidental to a state-law dispute and is invoked only as a defense.

LYNCH v. Tiffany · filed 2022-02-07

The fact that Tiffany is a Medicaid recipient is merely incidental, and there is no dispute that Tiffany is required to pay his Medicaid liens with his settlement funds. See ECF No. 40, at 9-10. Lynch’s invocation of his obligations with regard to Tiffany’s Medicaid liens is little more than a justification as to why the funds have not been transferred. Put differently, Lynch invokes 42 U.S.C. § 1396k(a)(1) merely “to establish what is in effect a federal defense to a purely state law enforcement action.” Exxon, 683 F.2d at 73. The Court will therefore dismiss this action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires facts showing that the cause of action involves an issue of federal law to invoke federal-question jurisdiction.

Williams v. Biden · filed 2022-03-21

In order to invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, plaintiff must allege facts showing the cause of action involves an issue of federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when its theories of recovery do not require interpreting federal law.

Stewart v. Purgason · filed 2022-03-31

These theories of recovery do not require any interpretation of federal law. Accordingly, no federal issue is necessarily raised in this case.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when a federal issue arises only from their settlement and is not necessary to establish the claims.

Kachman v. Standard Fuel Engineering Company · filed 2023-01-10

Any federal law issue that the settlement may raise has nothing to do with the elements that Plaintiffs would have had to have proven to establish their claims, as those claims are undisputedly based on state law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims unless the claims themselves necessarily raise a federal issue.

Barber v. Standard Fuel Engineering Company · filed 2023-01-10

Having failed to identify a federal issue necessarily raised by Plaintiffs’ claims, Defendants have not met their burden of establishing that this Court has jurisdiction, and thus, remand is required.

Section 1331 permits federal question jurisdiction over a state law claim under Grable only if a federal issue is necessarily raised as an essential element of the claim.

ESTATE OF CLARA T. TROILO v. ROSE TREE PLACE · filed 2023-02-09

Plaintiff’s claims do not satisfy the first part of the Grable test because they do not “necessarily raise” a federal issue. There is no indication here that any essential element of Plaintiff’s claims requires a determination of federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction when a federal issue arises only as a defense to a state law claim.

Inland Empire United v. Riverside County · filed 2023-01-23

Plainly, a federal issue raised only in defense cannot confer jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the plaintiff can obtain relief under an independent state-law theory.

Gurlea v. Dudley · filed 2023-03-30

Therefore, because the Plaintiffs may potentially succeed on their state law claims by relying exclusively on Virgin Islands antitrust law, the federal antitrust issues are not necessarily raised or certain to be in dispute.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim that can be resolved without deciding a federal issue.

Brearley v. FDH Infrastructure Services LLC · filed 2023-04-26

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ claim does not necessarily raise any issue of federal law. ... Where a legal avenue paved entirely with state law is available to the instant plaintiff, removal likewise is improper in this case.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim supported by an independent state-law theory, even when the complaint references federal law.

Smith v. Bradford · filed 2023-05-23

Because Plaintiff’s claims can be supported by alternative and independent theories not dependent on federal, federal question jurisdiction does not attach.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the court can resolve it without reaching the federal issue.

Progressive Express Insurance Company v. Harry's Truck Service, LLC · filed 2023-08-23

The Court might not have to look at the MCS-90 endorsement at all, so the complaint does not necessarily raise a federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim unless the claim necessarily raises a federal issue.

The City of St. Charles v. Union Electric Company · filed 2023-11-02

Because the “necessarily raised” element is not satisfied, this case is not one of the special and small category of cases that originate in state law yet still arise under federal law for the purposes of federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the plaintiff can establish it without resolving a federal issue.

Cotton v. Rhine · filed 2023-12-18

Because Plaintiff need not rely on the VA regulations and may rely on other standards to establish his claims for wrongful death, the Court finds a federal issue is not necessarily raised.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction under Grable when the federal issue arises only as an anticipated defense rather than as an essential part of the plaintiff’s claim.

DC v. Exxon Mobil Corporation · filed 2023-12-19

A federal question is necessarily raised only if it is “an essential part of [the plaintiff’s] affirmative claim” rather than a “response to an anticipated defense.”

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal issue arises only as an affirmative defense.

Ovodenko v. Triton Pacific Capital Partners, LLC · filed 2024-01-29

However, a civil action asserting state law claims is not subject to removal based solely on a federal affirmative defense.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when state-law claims can be proved without resolving a federal-law issue.

State of New Mexico, ex rel. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. · filed 2024-02-05

The State can prove its claims through any of these practices by referring solely to New Mexico substantive law and without regard to any COPPA violations. Consequently, their claims do not necessarily raise a federal law issue, and federal question jurisdiction does not lie.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when an independent state-law theory can support it without resolving a federal issue.

Sanjiv Goel M.D., Inc. v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. · filed 2024-02-08

However, here, the Court holds, for the purposes of this Motion, the federal issues are not “necessarily raised” because the duty that allegedly gives rise to Defendant’s implied-in-law contract is grounded in both state and federal law, and thus the merits of Plaintiff’s claim can be litigated on the state law claims alone.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the plaintiff can prevail under independent state-law duties without resolving a federal issue.

The People of the State of California v. Express Scripts, Inc. · filed 2024-02-28

Thus, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that a federal issue is not necessarily raised because Plaintiff can prevail on its public nuisance claim by reference to duties imposed by California law alone.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the claim can be resolved on an alternative state-law basis without deciding the federal issue.

Bayer v. Community Insurance Company · filed 2024-04-18

The Court could determine that Anthem violated state law, in which case the federal question need not be addressed at all.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim unless the claim necessarily raises a federal issue.

County Of Orange v. The Crossroads Hotel · filed 2024-04-23

Defendants are unable to meet even the first of the four requirements for a Grable exception, meaning that they are unable to show that a federal issue is necessarily raised by Plaintiff’s complaint.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because the complaint references federal law; the federal issue must be a necessary element of the claim.

Gettysburg v. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. · filed 2024-05-07

The Court disagrees. The mere fact that the Complaint has referenced the CSA or even woven CSA-related issues into the nuisance claim does not mean that a federal issue has become an essential element of the nuisance claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction under Grable when the asserted federal issue appears only as a defense and not on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint.

Nevil Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Bradley Allan Nevil and Sheri Nevil (Decedents) v. Barcenas · filed 2024-05-23

Given that the federal issues asserted by the Employer Defendants under the FAAAA are neither raised nor disputed on the face of Plaintiffs’ personal-injury complaint, Grable plainly does not apply.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim unless a federal issue is an essential element of the claim.

Edmondson v. City of Boaz Alabama · filed 2024-06-24

A federal question is “necessarily raised” only if a federal issue is an “essential element” of the plaintiff’s state-law claim.

Section 1331’s necessarily raised requirement is not met when a state-law claim can be resolved on a theory that does not require deciding a federal issue.

Doe v. Southern Illinois Healthcare Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2024-09-19

A federal question is “necessarily” raised under § 1331 only when it is essential to resolving a state-law claim, meaning that “every legal theory supporting the claim requires the resolution of a federal issue.”

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when independent state-law theories support the claims, so resolving a federal question is unnecessary.

Venus Bishop v. Blue Shield of California Life & Health Insurance Company · filed 2025-02-24

Because the Complaint offers both federal and state law theories of liability for each of Plaintiff's claims, Plaintiffs right to relief does not necessarily depend upon the resolution of a question of federal law. As such, federal question jurisdiction does not attach.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when deciding the claim does not require resolving a federal question.

Partners Alliance Corporation v. Ally Bank · filed 2025-05-05

In sum, while Plaintiffs believe that Defendants are interpreting AB 2311 against the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution, deciding this question of federal law is unnecessary to determining whether Defendants intentionally interfered with their contractual rights. Accordingly, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim unless the claim necessarily raises a federal issue.

Mikkelson v. Michaels Management Services LLC · filed 2025-07-03

Defendants have failed to identify any federal issue that is “necessarily raised” by plaintiffs’ claims.

For a state-law claim to support federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331, a federal issue must be necessary to resolve the claim.

Doran · filed 2026-03-31

Here, Helm has not shown that a federal issue is necessary to the resolution of Doran’s claims.

A state-law claim does not arise under § 1331 when it can be resolved without deciding a federal issue.

Hunter Laboratories, ex rel. v. Commonwealth of Virginia · filed 2016-07-07

Put succinctly, the Complaint’s VFATA claims do not necessarily raise any federal issue, and thus do not arise under federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state negligence claim when federal regulations incorporated into state law are not essential to resolving it.

Dippel v. BestDrive, LLC · filed 2020-02-19

Dippel’s state law claims do not necessarily raise a federal issue. A federal issue is necessarily raised under § 1331 when it is essential to resolving a state law claim.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when state-law claims can be resolved without deciding a federal issue.

West Virginia State University Board of Governors v. The Dow Chemical Company · filed 2020-06-01

Accordingly, the court does not have federal question jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because they implicate general federal interests; a federal issue must be a necessary element of a claim.

State of Rhode Island v. Shell Oil Products Co., LLC · filed 2022-05-23

To paraphrase these courts: none of Rhode Island's claims has as an element a violation of federal law; the Energy Companies pinpoint no specific federal issue that must necessarily be decided for Rhode Island to win its case; and their speaking about federal law ... or federal concerns in the most generalized way is not enough for Grable purposes.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims unless the claims necessarily raise a federal issue; a later motion raising one does not suffice.

McCaul v. Standard Fuel Engineering Company · filed 2023-01-10

Having failed to identify a federal issue necessarily raised by Plaintiffs’ claims, Defendants have not met their burden of establishing that this Court has jurisdiction, and thus, remand is required.

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction over a state law claim supported by an independent state law theory when the claim does not necessarily raise a federal issue.

Horwitz v. University of Washington · filed 2023-02-02

The Court finds that Defendant fails to meet the first Grable requirement: that a federal issue is “necessarily raised” by Plaintiffs’ claim.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the asserted federal issue arises only as a defense.

Rivera-Zayas v. Our Lady of Consolation Geriatric Care Center · filed 2023-04-13

Accordingly, no federal issue is necessarily raised, so OLOC’s argument fails at the first step of the analysis.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a challenge to a state foreclosure judgment, which is a matter of state law.

Hall v. Frenkel, Lambert, Weisman & Gordon LLP · filed 2020-01-13

Succinctly, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as it is well settled that judgments of foreclosure are fundamentally matters of state law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim that defendants lacked standing to begin foreclosure proceedings in state court.

Smith v. US Bank National Association Mastr Asset Securities Trust 2006-WMC2 · filed 2022-09-12

Thus, the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim about Defendants’ alleged lack of standing to commence foreclosure proceedings in state court.

Section 1331 does not give federal-question jurisdiction over a foreclosure dispute grounded in state law.

Hall v. Bank of New York Mellon/CEO Thomas P. Gibson · filed 2020-01-13

Plaintiff Anthony Hall brings this action invoking the Court’s federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, challenging the foreclosure of his real property located in Brooklyn.' ... In line with this analysis, the complaint is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not give federal courts jurisdiction over a foreclosure dispute that raises only state-law property claims.

Ferreira v. Wang · filed 2020-11-30

Here, Plaintiffs’ claims do not arise under the United States Constitution or the laws of the United States. Rather, Plaintiffs seek this Court’s intervention in a dispute with Defendants regarding the foreclosure of their property. However, it is well-settled that claims involving property disputes are fundamentally matters of state law, and as such, this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the requested relief.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over an equitable Fifth Amendment claim for injunctive and declaratory relief.

Urdaneta v. Keeton · filed 2020-05-11

Even if the Court were to lack jurisdiction to review Petitioners’ claims under § 2241, Petitioners have alternatively pleaded a cause of action under the Fifth Amendment for injunctive and declaratory relief, over which the Court would have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as an equitable cause of action under the Constitution.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over constitutional due process claims for declaratory and injunctive relief independently of an accompanying habeas petition.

Kelvin Hernandez Roman v. Wolf · filed 2020-09-23

Here, Plaintiffs’ due process claims arise under the Constitution and Plaintiffs invoked 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides subject matter jurisdiction irrespective of the accompanying habeas petition.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over constitutional due process claims independently of an accompanying habeas petition.

Kelvin Hernandez Roman v. Wolf · filed 2020-10-13

Here, Plaintiffs’ due process claims arise under the Constitution, and Plaintiffs invoked 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides subject matter jurisdiction irrespective of the accompanying habeas petition.

Section 1331 does not provide original jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Melillo v. Melillo · filed 2020-11-19

The parties are not of diverse citizenship, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 does not provide a basis for original jurisdiction over state-law claims.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over suits seeking equitable relief directly under the Constitution.

Maehr v. U.S. Department of State · filed 2021-07-20

“Section 1331 thus provides jurisdiction for the exercise of the traditional powers of equity in actions arising under federal law.” Id. The district court therefore had jurisdiction under § 1331, and we have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Section 1331 does not provide original jurisdiction over state-law claims.

O'Donnell v. DHS-MSOP · filed 2021-10-18

But § 1331 does not provide original jurisdiction over state- law claims, and there is no reason to believe from the complaints that the parties in any of the four lawsuits are of diverse citizenship.

Section 1331 does not itself confer jurisdiction over state tort claims for negligent training and oversight or intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Reid v. West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation · filed 2022-03-28

The Plaintiff filed his complaint pursuant to 42 U.S. C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C §§ 1331, 1343(a)(3), none of which provide this Court with jurisdiction to hear a tort claim.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a federal claim that is not clearly immaterial or insubstantial, regardless of whether the claim succeeds on the merits.

Adams v. Landry · filed 2022-05-04

Accordingly, as plaintiff alleges federal question jurisdiction pursuant to § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Court has jurisdiction over plaintiff’s federal claims regardless of whether they have merit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).