28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an action after its only federal claim is dismissed.

Hitchcock v. Woodside Literary Agency · filed 1998-07-28

The RICO claim is the only federal claim asserted in the amended complaint. Therefore, the dismissal of the RICO claim means eliminates federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over this action.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a facially federal claim unless it is so plainly insubstantial that it presents no issue worthy of adjudication.

Montauk Bus Co., Inc. v. Utica City School Dist. · filed 1998-11-24

These allegations are facially sufficient to invoke the court’s subject matter jurisdiction and are not so plainly insubstantial that they are devoid of any merit or fail to present an issue worthy of adjudication.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a facial federal claim unless the claim is wholly insubstantial or frivolous.

Keith v. Black Diamond Advisors, Inc. · filed 1999-03-08

Under Bell, jurisdiction is presumptive unless the federal claim is so insubstantial or frivolous that it was added only to obtain jurisdiction over the con-cededly state law claims.

Section 1331 supplies no federal-question jurisdiction when the only federal claim has been voluntarily dismissed.

Weddington v. Ford Motor Credit Co. · filed 1999-07-21

Plaintiffs have advanced to the Court however, that after discussion with Defendant’s counsel, Plaintiffs do not have a private cause of action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and thus have voluntarily dismissed that particular claim. Therefore, the Court finds federal question jurisdiction in this matter nonexistent.

Section 1331 requires a substantial federal claim; an obviously meritless or frivolous claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Lovern v. Edwards · filed 1999-08-31

The mere assertion of a federal claim is not sufficient to obtain jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3).

Section 1331 requires a substantial federal claim; merely asserting a federal claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Michael Lovern, Sr. v. Mark A. Edwards, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Superintendent of the Henrico Count · filed 1999-08-31

The mere assertion of a federal claim is not sufficient to obtain jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3).

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a non-frivolous federal claim even if the claim is later dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Bollard v. California Province of the Society of Jesus · filed 1999-12-01

Failure to state a claim under federal law is not the same thing as failure to establish federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Any non-frivolous assertion of a federal claim suffices to establish federal question jurisdiction, even if that claim is later dismissed on the merits under Rule 12(b)(6).

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over claims turning on a federal statute unless the federal claim is wholly insubstantial, frivolous, or patently without merit.

Cordoba v. McElroy · filed 2000-01-03

As a general proposition, a complaint that turns on a federal statute, as does Cordoba’s, comes within the federal question jurisdiction. ... Where, however, “such a claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous” or “patently without merit,” the court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter.

Section 1331 gives a district court federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges a substantial, nonfrivolous federal claim, even if that claim is later dismissed.

United International Holdings, Inc. v. Wharf (Holdings) Ltd. · filed 2000-04-28

In summary, if a party alleges a substantial and nonfrivolous federal claim, a district court obtains subject matter jurisdiction and may, in its discretion, exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims. Once subject matter jurisdiction exists, a district court has constitutional authority to hear related state claims even if the federal claim is later dismissed by the district court or by this court on appeal.

Section 1331 does not support federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted federal claim is obviously without merit or foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent.

Evitt v. Durland · filed 2000-11-28

“A federal claim is insubstantial only if it is obviously without merit or is wholly frivolous, or is clearly foreclosed by prior decisions of the Supreme Court.” ... Here, Evitt’s § 1983 claim was both obviously without merit and foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Polk County .

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction over a federal claim that is neither made solely to obtain jurisdiction nor wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Farr v. Gonzo Corp. · filed 2001-06-25

Plaintiffs Federal claim cannot be said to have been “made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction;” nor is it “wholly insubstantial and frivolous.”

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a plausible federal trademark claim even if the plaintiff has not established bad faith, unless the claim is too insubstantial to present a federal controversy.

Cable News Network LP, LLLP v. Com · filed 2001-09-18

Section 1331 provides that federal district courts have authority to exercise “original jurisdiction [over] all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” ... Further, because bad faith is not a jurisdictional requirement, plaintiffs claim may be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction only if the claim “is so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of this Court, or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy.”

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when a substantial federal issue is an essential element of that claim, including a dispute over a federal procedural rule and a conflicting appellate decision.

U.S. Express Lines, Ltd. v. Higgins · filed 2002-02-15

We also conclude that the conflict between the procedural rule and the opinion of a United States Court of Appeals raises a federal question sufficient to support removal of the malicious abuse of process claim from the state court to the federal forum.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because it refers to a federal statute; a substantial, disputed federal question must be a necessary element of the claim.

Michigan Southern Railroad Company v. Branch & St. Joseph Counties Rail Users Association, Inc. · filed 2002-04-24

As explained above, mere reference to a federal statute does not establish federal jurisdiction unless a substantial, disputed question of federal law is a necessary element of a state cause of action.

Section 1331 does not confer subject matter jurisdiction when the plaintiff has established no federal claim.

Newsome v. Sutter · filed 2002-08-23

Because Newsome has established neither diversity of citizenship nor a federal claim, the district court did not err in dismissing the suit for lack of jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332.

Section 1331 requires a substantial federal claim to support federal-question jurisdiction.

Olsen v. Aebersold · filed 2003-07-11

To support the exercise of federal-question jurisdiction, plaintiffs must present a “substantial” federal claim.

Section 1331 permits federal jurisdiction over a state-law claim that necessarily depends on resolving a substantial question of federal law.

Dixon v. Coburg Dairy · filed 2003-10-03

Despite the lack of any federal claim in Count I, this Court may still retain jurisdiction over the remainder of the case if the state causes of action alleged in Counts III and IV "`necessarily depend[ ] on the resolution of a substantial question of federal law.'" Mulcahey v. Organic Chem. Co., Inc., 29 F.3d 148, 151 (4th Cir. 1994) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 28 (1983)). ... We find the question presented by Dixon's complaint to be substantial for three reasons.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint presents no colorable federal claim on its face.

Goins v. Hitchcock Independent School District · filed 2003-10-15

Because Plaintiffs’ Original Petition presents no colorable federal claims on its face, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction after the plaintiff amends the complaint to drop the sole federal claim.

Fleeman v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. · filed 2003-10-28

Based on the above, the court concludes that it has no federal question jurisdiction over the case.

Section 1331 requires a substantial, non-frivolous federal claim for federal-question jurisdiction; citing federal statutes alone is insufficient.

Deleo v. Rudin · filed 2004-07-30

DeLeo’s citations to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1985 are insufficient to establish federal jurisdiction. Because DeLeo has failed to assert a substantial, non-frivolous federal claim, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits federal jurisdiction over a non-frivolous federal claim even when the claim ultimately fails on the merits.

Afran v. Gov of NJ · filed 2004-10-13

The District Court properly exercised its federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. Federal jurisdiction is proper where plaintiffs assert a non-frivolous federal claim.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a pleaded federal claim unless it is so insubstantial, meritless, or foreclosed by precedent that it cannot support jurisdiction.

Honeywell International, Inc. v. Phillips Petroleum Co. · filed 2005-06-30

Having reviewed Honeywell’s complaint, we find that its CERCLA contribution claim against Phillips, when filed, was not so insubstantial, meritless or so foreclosed by precedent as to render it insubstantial for purposes of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction when a federal claim meets the substantiality doctrine’s lenient standard.

Adams v. Suozzi · filed 2005-12-30

Nevertheless, the District Court had subject matter jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because one of the federal constitutional claims asserted by ShOA in its original complaint met the lenient standard necessary for federal question jurisdiction set by the "substantiality doctrine."

Section 1331 reaches a federal due process claim whose federal basis is not absolutely devoid of merit.

Adams v. Suozzi · filed 2005-12-30

Here, appellants asserted a federal due process claim otherwise within the scope of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 that we cannot say was “absolutely devoid of merit.”

Section 1331 requires the operative complaint to state a claim arising under federal law for federal-question jurisdiction.

B & B Enterprises of Wilson County, LLC v. City of Lebanon · filed 2006-03-23

In this case, federal subject-matter jurisdiction is apparently premised upon federal question jurisdiction, which requires that a complaint state a claim for relief “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The original complaint in the Member Case did not state a federal claim.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when references to the Constitution and federal statutes fail to present a colorable claim arising under federal law.

Anderson v. Wiggins · filed 2006-09-29

Although plaintiff cites the Constitution and federal statutory law as the basis for his three counts, his claim is clearly not one “arising under” the Constitution and federal law. Consequently, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based on a request for relief under federal law when no cognizable federal claim supports that request.

Case v. ANPAC Louisiana Insurance · filed 2006-12-11

However, Defendant admitted during argument that there is no cognizable claim for such relief under federal law. Thus, the Court finds that the exercise of federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 would be inappropriate based on this allegation.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint does not state a claim based on federal law.

Avent-Bey v. Office of Tax & Revenue · filed 2007-02-01

The district court properly dismissed this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, because the complaint did not state a claim based on federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, nor was there diversity of citizenship, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted federal claims are insubstantial.

Decatur Liquors, Inc. v. District of Columbia · filed 2007-02-27

In light of the insubstantiality of plaintiffs’ federal claims, we conclude that the district court lacked federal-question jurisdiction over those claims and thus supplemental jurisdiction over the Home Rule Act claim.

A colorable FDCPA claim supports federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331, while debt-collector status is an element of the claim rather than a jurisdictional fact.

Bennett v. American Medical Response, Inc. · filed 2007-03-27

Because this case arises under federal law, we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d). Whether AMR was a debt collector within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1692a is not a jurisdictional fact, but rather an element of Bennett’s claim under the FDCPA.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over negligence and other tort claims that state no federal claim.

Lewis v. Government of the District of Columbia · filed 2008-01-22

At most, these allegations may state a negligence claim cognizable under District of Columbia law. Neither this negligence claim nor the other tort claims are federal claims sufficient to establish this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a substantial federal claim even if the claim ultimately fails to state a claim for relief.

Medical Mut. of Ohio v. K. AMALIA ENTERPRISES INC. · filed 2008-12-02

Even if the contract rescission requested by MMO were characterized as “legal” relief and therefore failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, federal courts would nonetheless have subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a federal claim alleging unreasonable agency delay when the claim is not patently without merit.

Villa v. United States Department of Homeland Security · filed 2009-04-06

The federal question statute confers jurisdiction on the district courts over “all civil actions arising under” federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... The Court finds that this claim is not patently without merit, and the Court, therefore, has subject matter jurisdiction under federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction when the complaint presents a sufficiently substantial federal claim, even if that claim later fails.

Morningstar v. City of Detroit · filed 2009-04-23

Having previously held that Plaintiffs § 1983 claim against the City of Detroit was sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss, the Court likewise concludes that the claim was sufficiently “substantial” to bring the case within the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a colorable federal claim; a frivolous claim with no possible validity does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Friederichs v. Gorz · filed 2009-06-08

Plaintiffs’ Lanham Act claim has no possible validity and, accordingly, fails to establish federal-question jurisdiction here.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a non-frivolous claim arising under federal law even if the claim may fail on the merits.

Quinn v. Gates · filed 2009-07-29

Any non-frivolous claim arising under federal law supplies jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when no federal claim remains.

Hoffman v. Connecticut · filed 2009-09-18

Without a federal claim, there is no federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the jurisdictional provision for federal claims.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a contract claim that necessarily raises a disputed, substantial federal issue that a federal court may hear without disturbing the congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.

County of Santa Clar v. Astra USA, Inc. · filed 2009-12-09

Here, regardless of whether federal or state law creates the cause of action underlying Santa Clara’s contract claim — ... — it “necessarily raise[s] a stated federal issue, actually disputed and substan- tial, which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any congres- sionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities,” and so was properly heard by the district court in the exercise of its 28 U.S.C. § 1331 federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted federal claim is not colorable because the invoked federal statute is wholly inapplicable to the pleaded facts.

Loaisiga-Cruz v. Hospital San Juan Bautista · filed 2010-01-29

As discussed above, Plaintiff has completely failed to state a colorable cause of action under EMTALA which would grant the Court federal question jurisdiction in the instant case. Rather, Plaintiff appears to have attempted to force federal question jurisdiction upon a set of facts which, at best constitute a potential state malpractice claim by invoking a federal statute which is wholly inapplicable to the factual scenario surrounding his claim. Thus, the Court cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over the instant case.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim that necessarily raises a disputed, substantial federal issue when exercising jurisdiction preserves the congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.

Coventry Health Care, Inc. v. Caremark, Inc. · filed 2010-04-01

In considering all these factors collectively, this Court concludes that the federal issue implicated here is sufficiently substantial to justify “arising under” jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a colorable claim under the Constitution or federal law for federal-question jurisdiction; without one, the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

Patterson v. Rodgers · filed 2010-04-28

In order for this Court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction, Plaintiff must set forth a colorable claim under the Constitution or federal statute, creating “federal question” jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Where there is no diversity of citizenship and no colorable claim arising under federal law, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the entire action.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint invokes a federal civil rights statute without factual allegations or an explanation of the basis for the claim.

Amiri V.gelman Management Company · filed 2010-08-19

By alleging Gelman’s violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, see Am. Compl. at 9, plaintiff presumably attempts to establish federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. But plaintiff presents neither factual allegations nor any explanation of the basis for his claim, and it is unclear which provision of the Civil Rights Act, if any, might apply to his case.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a nonfrivolous federal claim even when the claim is legally insufficient on the merits.

TriState HVAC Equipment, LLP v. Big Belly Solar, Inc. · filed 2010-10-20

It is well settled that the “legal insufficiency of a federal claim generally does not eliminate the subject matter jurisdiction of a federal court.”

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law; a complaint must raise a federal claim to invoke it.

Colbert v. Department of Human Resources · filed 2010-10-28

Federal district courts have jurisdiction in civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... As drafted, the complaint does not appear to raise a federal claim, and it does not allege facts to show that diversity jurisdiction exists. Accordingly, the complaint will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint pleads a colorable claim arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Garman Ex Rel. Garman v. Campbell County School District No. 1 · filed 2010-12-23

This was clearly a mistake. “A plaintiff properly invokes § 1331 jurisdiction when she pleads a colorable claim arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States. She invokes § 1332 jurisdiction when she presents a claim between parties of diverse citizenship that exceeds the required jurisdictional amount, currently $75,000.” Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513 (2006) (quotations and citation omitted). Garman’s amended complaint did not plead a colorable federal claim, and thus, the court’s jurisdiction was based only on § 1332.

Federal-question jurisdiction requires a federal claim in the operative complaint; a proposed amendment cannot supply jurisdiction before leave to amend is granted and the amendment becomes effective.

McDonough v. UNICCO · filed 2011-02-08

Unless and until the state court grants Plaintiffs motion for leave to amend and that amended complaint becomes effective, the operative complaint in this matter — the First Amended Complaint — simply does not state a federal claim or otherwise give rise to federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction over a substantial, colorable federal claim even if the claim ultimately fails on the merits.

Rabe v. United Air Lines, Inc. · filed 2011-02-28

Even if those claims are not successful on the merits because her work for the last several years of her employment was not in the United States, they were substantial enough to give the district court subject matter jurisdiction over the case, including supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the proposed complaint alleges no violation of federal law or the Constitution.

Ricci v. Okin · filed 2011-03-17

Moreover, there is no federal question jurisdiction because the Union's proposed complaint makes no mention of any federal law or constitutional provision that Defendants allegedly violated.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction when the asserted federal claims are not colorable.

Tilli v. ManorCare Health Services · filed 2011-03-23

In particular, the District Court properly concluded that Tilli had not stated any colorable federal claim, see ... Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513 & n.10 (2006), and had not shown complete diversity of the parties.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint cites it but presents no basis for a federal claim.

Trammell v. Trammell · filed 2011-10-04

Although the complaint cites 28 U.S.C. § 1331, we perceive no basis for a federal claim.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over a claim that a state commission order violates federal law when the claim is neither made solely to obtain jurisdiction nor wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Puerto Rico Telephone Co., Inc. v. Sprintcom, Inc. · filed 2011-11-09

Because we find that PRTC's claim under Count 1 -- that the Board's order violates federal law -- was not "immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction" or "wholly insubstantial and frivolous," we find that the district court had federal question jurisdiction over it.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law; a complaint that states no federal claim does not establish that jurisdiction.

Johnson v. United States of America · filed 2011-12-23

F ederal district courts have jurisdiction in civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... This complaint neither states a federal claim nor establishes diversity of citizenship of the parties.

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

Whitt v. Whitt · filed 2012-01-10

This complaint neither states a federal claim nor establishes diversity of citizenship of the parties. Accordingly, the iCourt will dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a colorable claim arising under federal law, even if the claim may fail on its merits.

Holloway v. Pagan River Dockside Seafood, Inc. · filed 2012-03-01

If a plaintiff invoking § 1331 "pleads a color- able claim ‘arising under’ the Constitution or laws of the United States," Arbaugh, 546 U.S. at 513, he invokes federal subject matter jurisdiction, and deficiencies of the claim should be addressed by the other mechanisms provided by the federal rules.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law only when a federal claim appears in the complaint.

Turner v. Spaley · filed 2012-10-12

Federal courts also have subject matter jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331; however, “federal courts have federal question jurisdiction only when a federal claim appears in the complaint,” Levine v. United Healthcare Corp., 402 F.3d 156, 162 (3d Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Here, Turner failed to identify any federal statute or constitutional right that was allegedly violated by Spaley and Schieb.

Section 1331 gives federal question jurisdiction when the original complaint states a federal claim, and a later amendment deleting that claim does not defeat jurisdiction.

Cannon v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2012-12-10

The Court has federal question jurisdiction over the initial Complaint, which the Plaintiff cannot defeat by eliminating the Truth in Lending Act claim from her Amended Complaint. The Plaintiff may proceed with the claims stated in her Amended Complaint, but it is the initial Complaint that controls for purposes of determining this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the purported federal claim is not colorable.

Son Ly v. Solin, Inc. · filed 2012-12-17

Plaintiffs’ conclusory allegations of “racketeering” are simply not colorable and do not present a federal question for this Court’s decision.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over common law claims against defendants when no claim arising under federal law survives against them.

Lyles v. Hughes · filed 2013-08-01

Plaintiff cannot rely on federal question jurisdiction because no claim "arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States," 28 U.S.C. § 1331, survives as against these defendants.

Federal-question jurisdiction requires sufficient factual allegations to state a cognizable claim under federal law or raise a substantial federal issue.

Missud v. California · filed 2013-08-19

The district court properly dismissed Missud’s claims against the City and County of San Francisco, and its affiliated departments and agencies, because Missud ... failed to allege sufficient facts to state a cognizable claim under federal law or raise a substantial federal issue.

Section 1331 does not require a merits analysis of a federal claim before a court may exercise federal-question jurisdiction.

Fairfield County Medical Ass'n v. United Healthcare · filed 2013-12-05

Although arguments that the federal claims that provide subject matter jurisdiction are meritless may affect a court’s analysis of the decision whether to issue injunctive relief, a merits analysis is not a precondition to the exercise of federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 confers subject matter jurisdiction over a suit presenting a federal cause of action that is not facially insubstantial.

Fairfield County Medical Ass'n v. United Healthcare of New England, Inc. · filed 2014-02-07

Accordingly, because plaintiffs‟ federal cause of action is not facially insubstantial, the district court properly exercised subject matter jurisdiction over the suit.

Vague allegations of discrimination and a human-rights violation that fall far short of stating a viable constitutional claim do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Turner v. Georgetown Ministry Center · filed 2014-05-06

Federal district courts have jurisdiction in civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Plaintiff’ s vague allegations of "decrimination [sic] by the Georgetown l\/linitry [sic] Center" and "violation of human right," id. at 2, fall far short of stating a viable constitutional claim. ... Accordingly, the complaint will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not support federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint containing no federal causes of action.

Smith v. Midland Mortgage · filed 2014-06-19

Plaintiff’s Complaint contains no federal causes of action to support jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and there is no basis to infer that the amount in controversy is sufficient to support jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

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

Midland Farms, LLC v. United States Department of Agriculture · filed 2014-07-23

At the outset, § 1331 does not provide an independent source of jurisdiction, ... but grants district courts jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “In order to invoke federal jurisdiction under Section 1331, a plaintiffs claim must be based on some federal law independent of that statute.”

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no violation of federal law.

John Lemons, Sr. v. Div of Child Support Data Gath · filed 2014-12-03

The district court properly dismissed without prejudice Lemons’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Lemons failed to allege any violation of federal law or diversity of citizenship in his complaint.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint presents no colorable claim arising under the Constitution or a federal statute.

Gonzalez v. Ocwen Home Loan Servicing · filed 2015-02-25

First, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction in that there is neither a colorable claim arising under the Constitution or federal statute, i.e., no “federal question,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331, nor diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

Section 1331 does not establish federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint sets forth no constitutional or federal statutory basis for its claims.

Price v. Micherie L.L.C. · filed 2015-04-06

Because plaintiff‘s complaint does not set forth a constitutional or statutory basis for his claims, it is not apparent that this action arises under the United States Constitution or federal law.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction over a federal claim that clears the low threshold of being colorable, even if the claim ultimately fails on the merits.

Gallego v. Northland Group Inc. · filed 2016-02-22

Thus, because Gallego’s FDCPA claims meet the very low threshold required to support federal-question jurisdiction, despite their ultimate lack of merit, the district court has jurisdiction to address them on the merits.

Section 1331 requires a colorable claim arising under federal law; a bare reference to Title VII does not establish federal-question jurisdiction when the allegations have no connection to employment discrimination.

Cinotti v. Adelman · filed 2016-05-06

“A plaintiff properly invokes § 1331 jurisdiction when she pleads a colorable claim ‘arising under’ the Constitution or laws of the United States.” ... The plaintiff has not done so here. ... Such a naked reference to Title VII is insufficient to provide this court with a basis for exercising jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a colorable federal claim; a claim too insubstantial to involve a federal controversy does not confer federal-question jurisdiction.

Madden v. Bob Usry Plumbing · filed 2016-12-13

However, “jurisdiction under § 1331 exists only where there is a colorable claim arising under federal law.” ... We agree with the district court that Madden’s claims are so insubstantial that they do not confer federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a substantial federal issue for federal-question jurisdiction over a claim.

Paland v. Williams · filed 2017-01-25

The district court properly dismissed Paland’s post-Measure D claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because these claims did not raise a substantial federal issue.

Section 1331 gives federal question jurisdiction only when a claim arising under federal law is colorable; claims too implausible and insubstantial to present a federal controversy do not qualify.

Payn v. Kelley · filed 2017-07-27

Although claims asserted under the RICO Act, the Patriot Act and § 1985 ordinarily qualify for federal question jurisdiction under § 1331, “jurisdiction under § 1331 exists only where there is a colorable claim arising under federal law.” ... We nonetheless agree with the district court that Payn’s amended complaint does not provide any plausible basis to conclude the alleged actions by defendants violated any of the federal rights cited by Payn, and that his claims are so implausible and insubstantial that they do not confer federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a constitutional claim that is wholly unsubstantial and frivolous.

Oviatt v. Reynolds · filed 2018-05-07

But § 1331 does not create jurisdiction when the constitutional claim is “wholly unsubstantial and frivolous.”

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint lacks a plausibly pleaded federal claim.

Cholakian v. Federal Bureau of Investigation · filed 2018-05-11

Although Cholakian asserts federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331, the Complaint is bereft of any plausibly pled federal claim.

Section 1331 requires a colorable federal claim to support federal-question jurisdiction.

Roberson v. YouTube, et al. · filed 2018-06-12

Therefore, Roberson has not presented a colorable federal question to support subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a purported federal claim that is devoid of merit.

Mitchell v. Lietaer · filed 2018-12-21

Any claim under Title VII here would be so “devoid of merit” that jurisdiction under § 1331 does not exist.

Section 1331 requires a substantial federal claim, not a federal label used as a pretext to bring a state-law dispute into federal court.

Sroga v. Laboda · filed 2019-01-16

A federal district court has subject-matter jurisdiction under § 1331 when a substantial claim is founded on federal law. ... To have substance, the federal claim must be more than a pretext to bring a state-law dispute in federal court.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction when a party pleads a colorable claim arising under federal law; a claim seeking appropriate relief under ERISA satisfies that standard.

RightCHOICE Managed Care, Inc. v. Hospital Partners, Inc. · filed 2019-01-23

Plaintiffs plead subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which grants district courts the power to hear cases presenting a federal question. To properly allege federal- question jurisdiction, a party must plead a “colorable claim arising under the Federal Constitution or laws.” ... For purposes of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction, then, it is sufficient that Plaintiffs seek appropriate relief under ERISA.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a nonfrivolous federal claim even when the existence of a federal cause of action is doubtful.

Stanko v. Oglala Sioux Tribe · filed 2019-02-22

In this case, the federal court has jurisdiction but whether Stanko has a federal cause of action is highly questionable.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a colorable federal claim even when objections to the claim concern its merits.

State Constr. Corp. v. Slone Assocs., Inc. · filed 2019-04-22

Focusing on the narrow question before me - i.e., whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction - I conclude that it does, and that Defendants' arguments do not undermine this conclusion.

Section 1331 requires a federal issue in a state-law claim to be substantial to the federal system as a whole, rather than merely important to the parties.

Revere Housing Authority v. Aparicio · filed 2019-05-14

Whether a question is “substantial” depends not on its importance to the parties, but rather its importance to the federal system as a whole.

Section 1331 jurisdiction survives a federal claim’s failure on the merits unless the claim is so insubstantial or implausible that it does not present a federal controversy.

RASKAS v. LATTICE, INC. · filed 2019-07-03

While as explained infra the complaint, as pled, clearly fails to assert a FLSA claim, the Court does not conclude that the claim is “so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of this Court, or otherwise completely devoid of merit” as to deprive the Court of jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction when a plaintiff pleads a colorable claim arising under the Constitution or federal law.

Hardee v. Pritchett · filed 2019-08-06

Section 1331 confers federal question jurisdiction when a plaintiff “pleads a colorable claim ‘arising under’ the Constitution or laws of the United States.”

Section 1331 requires a complaint to allege a basis for a federal claim to invoke federal-question jurisdiction.

KEEL v. DIRECT EXPRESS BANK FRAUD SERVICES DEPARTMENT · filed 2019-09-12

His Complaint does not allege any basis for a federal claim against the bank for purposes of invoking the Court’s federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a colorable claim arising under federal law; an immaterial and insubstantial federal claim foreclosed by controlling precedent does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Jenkins v. City of Ruston · filed 2019-09-19

A plaintiff properly invokes Section 1331 jurisdiction when he pleads a colorable claim “arising under” the Constitution or laws of the United States. ... This case presents an instance where a jurisdictional dismissal is appropriate because the alleged federal claim against the City of Ruston is immaterial, insubstantial, and foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Monell.

Section 1331 supplies no original jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after the only federal claim is voluntarily dismissed.

Arellano v. PHH Mortgage Corporation · filed 2019-09-26

On August 26, 2019, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of her only federal claim for relief. (Dkt. No. 12.) As such, no claim remains over which the Court has original subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal claim in the complaint; references to federal constitutional cases only in a motion do not confer federal-question jurisdiction.

Jackson v. Kids In Crisis, Inc. · filed 2019-09-26

The Court recognizes that the Plaintiff also filed an Application for Temporary Injunction in which she cites United States Supreme Court cases which discuss parents’ constitutionally protected interest in the care, custody and management of their children. But these references, untethered to any allegation in the Complaint, and contained only in a motion, cannot confer federal question jurisdiction upon the Court.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissal of the only defendant facing a federal claim.

GESPA Nicaragua, S.A. v. Inabata Europe GmbH · filed 2019-12-30

The Court also determines that without Defendant Inabata as a party to the above- captioned cause, it lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a colorable claim based in federal law to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Harris v. Fraser · filed 2020-01-02

The plaintiff brings this action under the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, but his complaint does not raise any colorable claim with a basis in federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted federal claim is wholly insubstantial or frivolous.

ALLEN v. TRI-LIFT NORTH CAROLINA, INC. · filed 2020-01-07

A claim invoking federal question jurisdiction “may be dismissed for want of subject-matter jurisdiction if it is not colorable, i.e., if it is ‘immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction’ or is ‘wholly insubstantial and frivolous.’” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513 n.10 (2006) (quoting Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682–83 (1946)).

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over a colorable federal claim even if the claim may fail on the merits.

DCR Marketing Inc. v. Pereira · filed 2020-01-08

A court lacks federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 if the plaintiff has failed to plead a colorable claim arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States. ... If “the right of the petitioners to recover under their complaint [can] be sustained [under] one construction [of federal law] and . . . defeated [under] another,” then “the district court has jurisdiction.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998). That is the case here. Accordingly, the Court does not lack subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint identifies no federal law as the basis for a claim.

MIHRANIAN v. KALKIN · filed 2020-01-15

Here, Mihranian has not invoked federal question jurisdiction because she has not identified any federal statute, rule, regulation, or case as the basis for her lawsuit.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over claims that allege no conduct involving a federal claim.

Hieshetter v. Amann · filed 2020-01-22

Plaintiff’s allegations against defendants Clapp, Winkle, Rost, Sunrise, Cahill, and Hospice are devoid of merit because plaintiff does not allege conduct which involves a federal claim against any of the defendants.

Section 1331 requires a colorable claim arising under federal law; naming federal statutes that cannot support the pleaded claims does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Moore v. Garner · filed 2020-01-27

A district court has jurisdiction over a civil case under Section 1331 (i.e. federal-question jurisdiction) when “she pleads a colorable claim ‘arising under’ the Constitution or laws of the United States.” ... The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that there is no federal question jurisdiction based on any of the federal statues Plaintiff names.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff identifies no federal claim for relief.

Harbord v. MTC Financial Inc · filed 2020-01-30

Plaintiffs do not identify a federal claim upon which they are seeking relief, so the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires an alleged federal claim for federal-question jurisdiction; a state-law claim with no alleged federal claim must rely on another basis for jurisdiction.

Vang v. Delaware North · filed 2020-02-07

In the absence of any alleged federal claims, Plaintiff can only bring his state law claim in federal court based on the court’s diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a colorable claim based on federal law or the Constitution to invoke federal-question jurisdiction.

Hall v. US Bank · filed 2020-02-12

A plaintiff properly invokes jurisdiction when he pleads a colorable claim based on a provision of the Constitution or laws of the United States as opposed to the law of a state.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when an asserted federal claim is sufficiently colorable, even if it ultimately fails on the merits.

Sharma v. Santander Bank · filed 2020-02-25

Under the circumstances, the Court concludes that the claims here—which, again, purport to assert civil causes of action arising out of federal criminal statutes—are sufficiently colorable to confer federal-question jurisdiction, even if only barely so.

Section 1331 requires a federal claim to support federal-question jurisdiction; a complaint alleging only state-law claims does not establish it.

(PS) Selck v. Department of Social Services · filed 2020-03-02

The basic federal jurisdiction statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1332, confer “federal question” and “diversity” jurisdiction, respectively. ... The amended complaint also does not allege a federal claim that could support supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1331 gives a district court federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges a claim for violation of a federal statute.

Franco v. Central Transport LLC · filed 2020-03-02

Because the Complaint alleges a violation of FMLA, the Court has federal question subject-matter jurisdiction. Removal, therefore, was proper.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint merely invokes a federal statute without asserting a claim under it.

Cabrera v. State of North Dakota Workforce Safety and Insurance Fund · filed 2020-03-05

First, Ms. Cabrera does not explicitly assert an ADA claim against anyone in the body of either her original complaint or proposed amended complaint. Absent more, the mere invocation of the ADA is not enough to constitute a basis for this court’s exercise of jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction over a colorable federal claim that is not insubstantial on its face.

Intertek Testing Services, N.A., Inc. v. Pennisi · filed 2020-03-09

Since the allegations in the complaint state a colorable claim arising under the DTSA, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 supplies no federal-question jurisdiction when the sole federal cause of action has been dismissed.

Pinto v. Gulf Stream Coach, Inc. · filed 2020-03-19

Additionally, without a federal cause of action, there is no federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff fails to plausibly allege a colorable federal claim.

Mays v. Combs · filed 2020-04-15

Moreover, although Mays “believe[s] a federal law has been violated[,]” [D.E. 18] 4; [D.E. 28-1] 4, and cites a photocopy of the Bill of Rights with certain amendments emphasized, Mays has failed to plausibly allege a colorable federal claim. ... Thus, the court does not have federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Gonzales v. Rohrer · filed 2020-04-16

The district court properly dismissed Gonzales’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Gonzales failed to allege a federal claim or diversity of citizenship in her complaint. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a); Rivet v. Regions Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998) (plaintiff must present a federal question on the face of a properly pleaded complaint).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges only state-law claims and no federal claim.

Turner v. Hawkins · filed 2020-04-17

Plaintiff has not alleged any facts indicating that there are federal claims against Defendant, a private individual. At most, he is alleging state law claims against the Defendant. These are not claims over which this court has jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s allegations do not confer federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a complaint invokes federal statutes that provide the plaintiffs no civil claim.

KNOX v. ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY · filed 2020-05-11

A violation of a federal criminal statute does not automatically give rise to a federal question civil claim. ... The statute does not afford Plaintiffs a cause of action or a remedy. In short, Plaintiffs have not asserted a federal claim.

Section 1331 requires a colorable federal claim; brief, unexplained references to conspiracy and equal protection do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

PULLINS v. INDIANAPOLIS STAR INC. · filed 2020-05-15

Nor do brief, unexplained references to "conspiracy" and "equal protection" invoke federal jurisdiction. ... So Mr. Pullins has not established federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction only when the plaintiff asserts a separate cognizable federal claim.

Orr v. U.S. EPA · filed 2020-05-15

Further, neither 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction), 28 U.S.C § 1343 (Civil Rights jurisdiction), nor 28 U.S.C § 1367 (supplemental jurisdiction) provide an independent basis for this Court’s jurisdiction. Rather, those jurisdictional statutes are operable only to the extent the plaintiff can assert a separate and independent cognizable federal claim against the defendant.

Section 1331 requires a colorable federal claim; a frivolous claim does not support federal-question jurisdiction.

Wright v. Oklahoma Department of Transportation · filed 2020-05-19

The Complaint is frivolous and, therefore, will not support an exercise of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a cognizable federal claim to invoke federal-question jurisdiction.

(PS) Starr v. Gonzalez · filed 2020-05-26

Therefore, plaintiff’s complaint does not state a cognizable federal claim sufficient to invoke the court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a federal claim that is so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be devoid of merit.

Houchens v. Beshear · filed 2020-06-10

A claim under a federal statute does not give the court federal question jurisdiction if it is “so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit.”

Section 1331 requires a non-frivolous federal claim to support arising-under jurisdiction.

Black Bear Sports Group, Inc. v. Amateur Hockey Association of · filed 2020-06-22

It takes a non-frivolous federal claim to support the arising- under jurisdiction of 28 U.S.C. §1331.

Section 1331 requires a real, substantial federal question; citing federal statutes or constitutional provisions without a colorable claim does not establish jurisdiction.

Rouhi v. Kettler · filed 2020-06-24

Simple reference to federal statutes or constitutional provisions is insufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction, where no colorable claim exists.

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

Hastings v. Grundy · filed 2020-06-26

Because the complaint asserts no federal claim, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the federal question statute.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a colorable claim arising under federal law even if the claim may fail on its merits.

Minister Trazell v. Arlington County · filed 2020-07-09

“If a plaintiff invoking § 1331 pleads a colorable claim arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States, he invokes federal subject matter jurisdiction, and deficiencies of the claim should be addressed by the other mechanisms provided by the federal rules.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). ... Here, it is not clear from the district court’s order that it applied this standard; and it did not explicitly consider whether the dismissal should be for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or for failure to state a claim.

Section 1331 requires a colorable claim arising under the Constitution or a federal statute to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Thomas v. Brasher-Cunningham · filed 2020-07-27

In the absence of complete diversity, to assert subject matter jurisdiction over this action, Mr. Thomas must have a colorable claim arising under the U.S. Constitution or a federal statute. ... He has not done so.

Section 1331 gives a federal court jurisdiction over a colorable FLSA claim even when the plaintiff’s employee status is disputed, because employee status is an element of the claim rather than a jurisdictional prerequisite.

Gallagher v. Eat to the Beat, Inc. · filed 2020-08-04

Thus, whether plaintiff is an employee or not is not relevant to the Court’s jurisdiction; rather, it is an element of her claim. Therefore, the Court will not dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires facts suggesting a federal claim; merely invoking federal jurisdiction does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Glickstein v. Lesser · filed 2020-09-08

Mere invocation of federal jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction. ... Plaintiff does not invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, and he fails to allege any facts suggesting that he can assert a federal claim.

Section 1331 requires a colorable claim arising under federal law for federal-question jurisdiction.

Kahyaoglu v. Sayied · filed 2020-10-02

The court next considers Plaintiff’s federal claims to determine whether the court possesses federal question jurisdiction based on a colorable claim arising under the laws of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... In sum, Plaintiff has failed to allege a colorable claim under federal law, and accordingly, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a colorable claim arising under federal law for federal-question jurisdiction.

Loyd v. Services for the UnderServed Inc. · filed 2020-10-21

Plaintiff’s complaint does not set forth any other federal claims or otherwise assert a basis for federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not clearly confer jurisdiction over a civil harassment request that asserts no federal claim and may arise solely under state law.

Burd v. Hefflin · filed 2020-12-10

But Plaintiff’s Request does not assert any claims under federal law, and any claims could arise solely under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, gender, or sexual orientation.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a colorable ERISA claim even when the court has not determined whether the plan qualifies under ERISA.

Vest v. The Nissan Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan II · filed 2020-12-28

In short, generally federal-question jurisdiction exists if the plaintiff has a valid ERISA claim, even if the case does not involve a valid ERISA plan.

Federal-question jurisdiction does not arise from a private plaintiff’s reliance on federal criminal statutes that provide no private right of action.

GATES v. AMUNDSEN · filed 2021-01-14

The former cannot provide a basis for jurisdiction because a private citizen generally “has no authority to initiate a federal criminal prosecution,” Cok v. Cosentino, 876 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1989), and there is no indication of a private right of action under the Plaintiff’s identified statutes.

Section 1331 supports federal-question jurisdiction over a federal claim with a plausible legal foundation, even if the claim may fail on the merits.

Laborers' Pension Fund v. Midwest Milling and Paving Company · filed 2021-01-28

Accordingly, a court is not deprived of jurisdiction so long as “there is any foundation of plausibility to the federal claim.” Restoration Risk Retention Grp., Inc. v. Gutierrez, 880 F.3d 339, 347 (7th Cir. 2018) (internal citations omitted).

Section 1331 requires facts supporting a claim under federal law; merely invoking federal-question jurisdiction does not establish it.

Suarez v. Feistman · filed 2021-02-17

Mere invocation of federal-question jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal-subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction for an employment complaint that alleges no facts suggesting a claim under federal law.

Raktabutr v. Greater Baltimore Medical Center · filed 2021-02-18

GBMC accurately notes that plaintiff asserts no facts to suggest that her employment claims arise under federal law, whether it be Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S .C. § 2000e et seq.; the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq., or any other federal law.

Section 1331 requires a plausible federal claim on the face of the complaint to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Dodson v. Brame · filed 2021-03-03

Relevant here, federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 requires a plausible federal claim appearing on the face of the complaint.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint states no claim under the federal laws it cites.

Flynn v. Flores · filed 2021-03-04

There is no properly alleged federal-question jurisdiction because the Complaint does not state a claim pursuant to the only two federal laws cited in the Complaint.

Section 1331 no longer supplies federal-question jurisdiction when the only federal claim has been voluntarily dismissed and only state-law claims remain.

McMahan v. Jones · filed 2021-03-11

Here, Plaintiff has taken a voluntary dismissal of the only federal claim in this action. Thus, only state law claims remain in this action. Defendant removed this action based on federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This Court no longer has subject matter jurisdiction over this action, and the Court therefore sua sponte remands this action to state court.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a federal claim that is not so plainly meritless as to fail to present a federal controversy, even if the claim is dismissed on the merits.

Paushok v. Ganbold · filed 2021-03-18

For reasons mentioned below, although the Court does not find Paushok’s FDCPA claim to be so patently without merit as to deprive the Court of subject matter jurisdiction, the Court ... dismisses that claim under Rule 12(b)(6) for failing to plead sufficient facts demonstrating that the debt at issue arose from a consumer transaction.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction when a plaintiff pleads a colorable claim arising under federal law, even if a pro se complaint invokes only diversity jurisdiction.

Bongiovanni v. PennyMac Corp. · filed 2021-03-30

However, three of Plaintiff’s causes of action arise under federal law, and federal question jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 when a plaintiff pleads a colorable claim “arising under” the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1331 requires a substantial federal claim for federal-question jurisdiction.

SWINT v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE · filed 2021-05-11

In this case, a review of Plaintiff’s complaint fails to reveal a basis upon which this Court could exercise either federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. ... A court’s expeditious sua sponte review is based on the longstanding doctrine that federal subject matter jurisdiction is lacking when the federal issues are not substantial.

Section 1331 requires a colorable federal claim; state-law malpractice allegations do not establish federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no colorable claim under federal law.

Sawabini v. McConn · filed 2021-05-26

And as the medical defendants correctly explain in their moving papers, plaintiff has failed to allege a “colorable” federal claim under the FDA or any other federal statute.

Section 1331 requires a non-frivolous claim arising under the Constitution or federal law to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

HOBSON v. DOUBLE TREE SUITES BY HILTON PHILADELPHIA · filed 2021-07-30

While Plaintiffs have listed 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in support of their invocation of federal question jurisdiction, it is apparent from the face of the Amended Complaint that this statute is not implicated by the allegations and that the Amended Complaint fails to present a non-frivolous federal claim. ... As such, Plaintiffs do not state any claim that arises “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 no longer supplies federal-question jurisdiction when the sole federal claim has been dismissed.

Cephas v. Oliver · filed 2021-08-02

Now that the § 1983 claim is gone, this Court no longer has federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the suit presents no claim arising under federal law.

Adeyemi v. SunTrust Banks · filed 2021-08-02

There is no indication in the suit that plaintiff sought to assert a cause of action arising under federal law. ... I agree with plaintiff that federal question jurisdiction is not implicated.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no substantial federal claim.

WROBEL v. UNITED STATES · filed 2021-08-03

In this case, a review of Plaintiff’s complaint fails to reveal a basis upon which this Court could exercise either federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. ... Here, Plaintiff has not alleged a substantial federal claim or otherwise asserted a claim within the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint presents no non-frivolous claim to a right or remedy under federal law.

Martin v. Legal Services - Eastern Missouri Inc. · filed 2021-08-04

The Court therefore concludes that plaintiff's assertion of this Court’s federal question jurisdiction is patently meritless, and that her allegations fail to present a non-frivolous claim of a right or remedy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or any other federal Statute.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint fails to plead facts stating a plausible federal claim under § 1983.

Messinger v. Moore · filed 2021-08-10

Critically, however, as detailed below, the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction in this matter because Plaintiff has failed to plead sufficient facts that, even if proven true, do not state a plausible federal claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1331 requires a colorable federal claim; an insubstantial Fourteenth Amendment claim against private actors does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Bunch v. Deats · filed 2021-08-12

Based on the Supreme Court precedent cited above, the Court concludes that any potential Fourteenth Amendment claim asserted in Plaintiff’s Complaint is insubstantial, frivolous, and completely devoid of merit. Accordingly, the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s lawsuit and Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand should be granted.

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

Apothaker 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 requires an arguable or colorable federal claim; a purported federal claim that lacks one cannot support federal-question jurisdiction.

Myles v. The State of Georgia Bar · filed 2021-09-22

As Plaintiff’s Amended Complaints fail to identify any state actors and fail to plead factual allegations from which one could plausibly conclude that the acts of Daniels were fairly attributable to the state or that Daniels conspired with any state actors, Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim against Daniels is not arguable or colorable, and so cannot support federal question jurisdiction (and is also subject to dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as discussed below).

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction only when a complaint alleges a claim arising under federal law or the federal Constitution.

Williams v. 901 County Courthouse Staff · filed 2021-10-12

The plaintiff does not allege a federal claim against the defendants, so the court does not have federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law negligence claim when a federal preemption defense is not necessarily raised by the well-pleaded complaint.

Estate of Joseph Maglioli v. Alliance HC Holdings, LLC · filed 2021-10-20

But a PREP Act preemption defense is not “necessarily raised” by a well- pleaded state-law negligence complaint, so their argument fails at Grable’s first step.

Section 1331 requires a colorable federal claim; the court found no federal-question jurisdiction when the pleaded FCRA claims failed to state a cognizable federal claim.

IN RE HORIZON HEALTHCARE SERVICES INC. DATA BREACH LITIGATION · filed 2021-12-21

“A plaintiff properly invokes § 1331 jurisdiction when she pleads a colorable claim ‘arising under’ the Constitution or laws of the United States.” Id. Here, because Plaintiffs failed to state a cognizable federal claim under FCRA, the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a colorable claim arising under federal law; allegations that do not support a federal question do not establish subject matter jurisdiction.

Patel v. Sicre · filed 2021-12-22

A plaintiff properly invokes federal question jurisdiction when she pleads a colorable claim “arising under” the Constitution or laws of the United States. ... Because both the Complaint fails to provide allegations supporting federal question jurisdiction, this Court finds that no subject matter jurisdiction exists.

Section 1331 requires a non-frivolous claim of a right or remedy under federal law; patently meritless asserted federal claims do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Phillips v. Bloom · filed 2021-12-22

The Court therefore concludes that plaintiff’s asserted bases of federal question jurisdiction are patently meritless.

Section 1331 jurisdiction over a colorable federal claim is not defeated by an objection to the substantive validity of that claim, such as whether securities can be traced to a prospectus.

Zellner v. Citigroup Global Markets Holdings, Inc. · filed 2022-01-13

Whether Plaintiff can directly trace his UWT notes to the prospectus goes to the validity of his claim and not to this Court’s power to hear this dispute.