28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 requires a non-frivolous federal claim for federal-question jurisdiction; a patently meritless asserted basis does not suffice.

Saddler v. Hong · filed 2022-01-18

Federal question jurisdiction is proper where a plaintiff asserts “[a] non-frivolous claim of a right or remedy under a federal statute.” ... Even liberally construed, Plaintiff’s allegations fail to assert a non-frivolous claim of a right or remedy under the laws of the United States. ... Thus, Plaintiff’s asserted bases of federal question jurisdiction are patently meritless.

Section 1331 requires a colorable federal claim; citing § 1983 does not establish federal-question jurisdiction when the allegations present no such claim.

Menard v. First Source Federal Credit Union · filed 2022-01-26

Here, even given a liberal construction, Plaintiff’s complaint does not allege a federal claim such that the Court’s federal question subject matter jurisdiction may be invoked.

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

Gilliam v. Hess · filed 2022-01-27

Additionally, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint does not identify a federal claim that would allow the Court to exercise federal question jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted federal issue is insubstantial.

HERBERT v. DIKINS · filed 2022-02-22

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. ... Here, Plaintiff has not alleged a substantial federal claim or otherwise asserted a claim within the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Dismissal, therefore, is warranted.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a colorable federal claim even when the defendant argues that it was brought solely to obtain a federal forum.

Solomon v. Solomon · filed 2022-03-01

A claim invoking federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 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.’” See Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513 n. 10 (2006) (quoting Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682–83 (1946)). ... Nevertheless, the Court is not persuaded that Mr. Solomon brings his Lanham Act claim for the sole purpose of obtaining federal jurisdiction. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion will not be granted on this ground.

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

Delval Equipment Corporation, Inc. v. East Coast Welding and Construction Co., Inc. · filed 2022-03-10

A plaintiff properly invokes federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 “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).

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges no plausible claim under federal statutory or constitutional law.

Smolinski v. Hamlett · filed 2022-03-17

These factual allegations are insufficient to invoke federal jurisdiction or to state a claim under federal law.

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

Krueger, Kevin v. Landers, Hurley · filed 2022-03-22

Because Krueger has not identified a federal claim, nor can this court discern one, the court plainly lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a federal claim that is patently meritless.

Sacks v. University of Minnesota · filed 2022-04-26

Here, Defendants’ motions implicate two subject-matter jurisdiction questions: (A) whether Plaintiffs’ federal statutory claims are sufficiently substantial to trigger subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331; and (B) whether Plaintiffs’ jurisdiction-worthy federal claims and their state-law claims derive from a common nucleus of operative fact so as to trigger supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... The Title IX claims by Cary, Cole, and Gee will therefore be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim whose alleged federal basis is unsupported and frivolous.

TIMM v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY · filed 2022-04-29

The Court dismisses the claim against Fishman for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. ... This allegation is unsupported and does not support a basis for this Court exercising jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal claim to establish federal-question jurisdiction; claims for constructive trusts, accounting, and breach of fiduciary duty alone do not suffice.

(PS) The Ruth Camel, Estate v. Weber · filed 2022-05-05

Further, the court sees no basis for federal jurisdiction in the first amended complaint. Plaintiff continually refers to constructive trusts, accounting, breach of fiduciary duties—none of which are federal claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges constitutional violations only conclusorily and states no federal civil claim.

Rogowitz v. The Mallard Lake Community Association, Inc. · filed 2022-05-09

The Complaint will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. | have reviewed the Complaint and it does not raise a federal civil claim for violations of the United States Constitution or federal statutes. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a § 1983 claim barred by Heck’s favorable-termination requirement.

Baca v. City of Parkville · filed 2022-05-10

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal courts have “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” ... For the reasons explained above, the Court concludes on the face of the pleadings that Plaintiff’s sole-remaining § 1983 claim for wrongful or unconstitutional prosecution is barred by Heck and thus the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction in this case.

Section 1331 requires facts showing a claim arising under federal law; merely invoking federal question jurisdiction is insufficient.

Brown v. President/Founder Alma Realty Corp. · filed 2022-05-16

Mere invocation of federal question jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating that the plaintiff has a federal law claim, does not create federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a civil RICO claim is so patently without merit that it fails the jurisdictional threshold.

Maguire v. Ameriprise Financial Services, LLC · filed 2022-05-27

As explained further below, the Amended Complaint is entirely devoid of allegations that would comprise a requisite RICO enterprise or a pattern of racketeering activity; these deficiencies render the civil RICO claim “so patently without merit” as to warrant sua sponte dismissal of this claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint fails to plausibly suggest a viable federal claim.

Sims v. Optimum TV · filed 2022-05-31

Because the complaint fails to plausibly suggest a viable federal claim, the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction of his action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint merely mentions a federal constitutional protection without seeking relief under it.

Farmers Ins. Exchange v. PacifiCorp · filed 2022-06-17

Setting aside that incongruity, however, and construing the Complaint in its entirety, especially against the backdrop of Plaintiffs’ express and repeated admissions that they only intended to set forth an inverse condemnation claim under California law, the Court concludes that the operative Complaint does not plead a federal Fifth Amendment claim needed to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. The singular reference to the federal Constitution in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, especially when Plaintiffs only allege that the conduct is protected by the Fifth Amendment, but not that they seek to recover under that provision, is insufficient to support removal.

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

Crisel v. Stearns Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC · filed 2022-06-24

Those claims do not come within the removal-triggering exclusive jurisdiction of the PREP Act, and they do not “necessarily raise” a substantial federal issue within the meaning of Grable.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law; a state law contract dispute over a legal retainer does not establish federal question jurisdiction.

Abreu v. The Portela Law Firm, P.C. · filed 2022-07-11

Plaintiff invokes federal question jurisdiction but does not allege any facts suggesting a federal claim. To provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff’s claims must arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a plaintiff asserts a non-frivolous claim under federal law, the Constitution, or a treaty.

Swift v. U.S.A.A. Insurance · filed 2022-07-14

Subject-matter jurisdiction is also proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 when a plaintiff asserts a “non-frivolous claim of a right or remedy under a federal statute,” the Constitution, or treaties of the United States, commonly referred to as “federal question” jurisdiction. ... Plaintiff does not claim that federal-question jurisdiction is applicable, nor does he set forth any specific actions taken by the Defendant that violate any constitutional right or support a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or any other federal statute.

A federal claim that the plaintiff has effectively withdrawn can no longer supply federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Mancilla v. GR OPCO, LLC · filed 2022-07-29

As such, in the interest of judicial economy, the Court foregoes the requisite filing of an Amended Complaint and determines that Count II can no longer serve as the basis for federal question jurisdiction given that Plaintiff has effectively withdrawn the claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when neither party asserts a federal claim.

Fantagraphics Books Inc v. Ferris · filed 2022-08-03

And while Ferris claims that subject matter jurisdiction over her counterclaims rests on 28 U.S.C. § 1331, neither party asserts a federal claim.

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

Lewis v. Murray · filed 2022-08-31

He does not allege any violation of federal law that might support the exercise of jurisdiction under § 1331, and the court is unable to discern any possible federal cause of action based on the allegations in the complaint.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction over claims against defendants when the plaintiff states no federal claim against them.

Aursby v. Richardson · filed 2022-09-06

Because Aursby has stated no claim under § 1983 against these defendants for depriving him of federal rights, the court has neither original federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 nor any civil rights jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3).

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction after the plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the only claim arising under federal law.

Agrawal v. Potomac School · filed 2022-09-15

As just noted, the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Agrawal voluntarily dismissed her only claim arising under federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint does not clearly assert a federal claim.

Williams v. Nephrology Associates of Tidewater · filed 2022-09-29

Further, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, as summarized in its entirety above, does not clearly assert any federal claims that could serve as the basis for federal question jurisdiction in this action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the pleaded facts suggest no federal claim, even if the plaintiff invokes it.

Fuller v. Roar Money · filed 2022-10-24

By order dated July 29, 2022, the Court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that Plaintiff’s allegations did not suggest a claim under either its diversity jurisdiction or its federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and granted Plaintiff 30 days’ leave to replead his claims. On September 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint.1 This time invoking the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, Plaintiff sets forth the same facts that were in his original complaint. The amended complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, for the same reasons described in the July 29, 2002 order.

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

Duran v. Autozoners, LLC · filed 2022-10-27

WHEREAS, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides that “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” The SAC does not allege a federal claim. Thus, the Court also lacks federal question jurisdiction.

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

THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. GAGE · filed 2022-11-10

The municipal Complaint does not include any federal claims upon which federal question jurisdiction may rest.

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

Stephens v. Alaska Division of Elections, State of Alaska · filed 2022-12-13

This Court’s prior Order concluded that neither the First Amendment nor the Equal Protection Clause conferred federal question jurisdiction, implicitly concluding that Plaintiff failed to make a colorable federal claim.

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

Nielsen v. Lees · filed 2023-01-20

The Court has identified no federal claim in Plaintiff’s pleadings. Accordingly, Plaintiff has no federal question jurisdiction in this Court and must rely on diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolving a substantial federal question.

Alston v. Baltimore Gas & Electric Company · filed 2023-02-01

Second, and of relevance here, a claim is deemed to arise under federal law for purposes of § 1331 when, although it finds its origins in state law, “the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.”

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts no federal claim and its facts do not implicate a federal cause of action.

Lavi v. Sonelgaz Group of Companies · filed 2023-02-08

Plaintiff does not assert any federal claims, and a review of the limited facts set forth in the complaint do not implicate a federal cause of action. It thus appears that the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction of this matter.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint contains no federal claim against any defendant.

Ross v. Ross · filed 2023-02-13

This Court does not have federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Ross’s complaint does not contain a federal claim against any defendant.

A federal theory that is not frivolous invokes § 1331 jurisdiction even if the claim fails under Rule 12(b)(6).

Timms v. Holsten Management Corporation · filed 2023-02-16

Reviewing the amended complaint as supplemented by Mr. Timms’ brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss, the Court concludes that Mr. Timms’ federal theories are not so frivolous as to fail to invoke the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court agrees that Rule 12(b)(6), rather than Rule 12(b)(1), is the appropriate basis for the defendants’ motion.

Section 1331 requires a substantial, non-frivolous federal claim to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Eustade v. Eustade · filed 2023-02-17

Plaintiff’s Complaint, as presently pled, fails to allege a substantial, non-frivolous federal claim that implicates the Court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a state-law claim with an embedded federal issue only if that issue is substantial to the federal system as a whole.

ALSTON-PAGE v. STATE OPERATED SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR THE CITY OF PATERSON · filed 2023-03-08

However, the case fails at the third step of the inquiry—substantiality—which examines “the importance of the issue to the federal system as a whole,” as opposed to its significance to the parties in the immediate lawsuit. Gunn, 568 U.S. at 260. ... Applying the above, the federal issue plaintiff raises does not carry the significance required for a federal forum.

Section 1331 jurisdiction exists when a complaint alleges a nonfrivolous federal cause of action; failure to allege a state actor in a § 1983 claim is a pleading defect rather than a jurisdictional defect.

Smulley v. Liberty Mutual Holding Company, Inc. · filed 2023-03-14

The district court erred in grounding dismissal in lack of subject matter jurisdiction, rather than failure to state a claim. In determining whether the district court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, “[a] non-frivolous allegation of a cause of action under federal law suffices to invoke federal court jurisdiction.” Monsky v. Moraghan, 127 F.3d 243, 245 (2d Cir. 1997) (citing Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682 (1946)); see Shapiro v. McManus, 577 U.S. 39, 45 (2015) (stating that court should not dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction unless federal claim is “wholly insubstantial and frivolous”). The failure to name a state actor in a § 1983 action is not a jurisdictional defect here, but should instead be evaluated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Id.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to allege a claim under federal law or the federal Constitution to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Ensley v. Ballol · filed 2023-03-23

The complaint does not appear to allege any causes of action falling under federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint fails to allege a colorable claim arising under federal law.

Stephens v. US Mortgage Corporation · filed 2023-03-29

Plaintiff has not alleged a colorable claim arising under federal law, and the Court cannot exercise federal question jurisdiction over this case.

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

Stephens v. Regal Car Sales and Credit · filed 2023-03-31

Plaintiff has not alleged a colorable claim arising under federal law, and the Court cannot exercise federal question jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction when the complaint and other filings reveal no arguable basis for a federal claim.

Winston Banks v. Taylor · filed 2023-04-06

Nor has he argued that the District Court had federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and nothing in his complaints or other filings reveals any arguable basis to assert any federal claim. Thus, we agree with the District Court that it lacked jurisdiction over Banks’s claims.

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

Eustache v. Louissaint · filed 2023-04-07

Plaintiff asserts that the Court has federal question jurisdiction but does not suggest a plausible basis for the exercise of jurisdiction. ... A plaintiff properly invokes § 1331 jurisdiction when he or she pleads a colorable claim “arising under” the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no colorable claim arising under federal law.

Santana v. NCB Management Services, Inc · filed 2023-05-03

Plaintiff has not alleged a colorable claim arising under federal law, and the Court cannot exercise federal question jurisdiction over this case.

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

Villalobos v. Knight Auto and Towing Services LLC · filed 2023-05-12

Although Plaintiff indicates the basis for the court’s jurisdiction is the existence of a federal question, the court finds no cognizable federal claim in the Complaint.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a colorable federal claim is apparent on the face of the complaint.

Sifuentes v. Google Inc. · filed 2023-06-26

Nonetheless, the Court finds that federal question jurisdiction is apparent from the face of the Amended Complaint because Sifuentes asserts a colorable claim under federal law, namely, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2401.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim that necessarily requires resolution of a substantial federal issue.

Hawkins v. SSM Health Care Corp. · filed 2023-07-06

Because Plaintiff’s negligence-per-se claim involves a substantial federal question, the entire matter may be removed.

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

Rivard v. Smallheer · filed 2023-07-18

As a result, § 1331 does not provide a basis for the court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a claim based on federal law; alleged mail theft under federal criminal statutes that provide no private cause of action does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Ramsey v. Ramsey · filed 2023-07-20

For federal question jurisdiction—which Plaintiff asserts here—a complaint must allege a claim based on a federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Although there are federal statutes criminalizing mail theft and related activities, these laws do not create a private cause of action. ... As Plaintiff presents no other basis for federal jurisdiction over her claim that her mail was stolen, the complaint must be dismissed.

Section 1331 requires a colorable claim arising under federal law; a Bivens claim against defendants not alleged to be federal officials does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Conway v. Colonial Penn Life Insurance Company · filed 2023-07-27

Although Bivens claims certainly arise under federal law, Mr. Conway’s claim is far from “colorable.” Arbaugh, 546 U.S. at 513. ... Here, there are no allegations whatsoever that Colonial Penn or Mr. Schwartz was a federal official or that they violated Mr. Conway’s constitutional rights. See Dkt. 1. Thus, Mr. Conway has failed to adequately invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. § 1331; Arbaugh, 546 U.S. at 513.

A colorable § 1983 claim supports federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Garber v. Franciscan Alliance, Inc · filed 2023-08-23

The Court therefore finds the Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim colorable for purposes of establishing federal question jurisdiction, and it proceeds to address the merits of the case.

Section 1331 requires a colorable claim arising under federal law; merely invoking federal-question jurisdiction is insufficient.

Dyce v. Khelemsky · filed 2023-09-13

Plaintiff's Complaint attempts to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction pursuant to § 1331, but does not allege any “colorable claim” arising under the Constitution or federal laws.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction can rest on an asserted federal claim even when the complaint lacks sufficient facts to state that claim under Rule 12(b)(6).

Rodriguez v. Killam · filed 2023-09-18

It, nevertheless, determines that Plaintiff’s assertion of a RICO claim is sufficient at this stage to support federal question jurisdiction because the existence of subject matter jurisdiction based on a federal question does not turn on whether a plaintiff’s initial pleadings contain sufficient facts to state a claim upon which relief can be granted for purposes of Rule 12(b)(6).

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

Adeyemi v. Truist Bank · filed 2023-09-19

Because Adeyemi has failed to state a claim as to any violation of federal law, this Court lacks jurisdiction and the case cannot proceed.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim unless a substantial, disputed federal question is a necessary element of that claim.

Earth Research Labs LLC v. Oklahoma State of · filed 2023-09-26

The Court concludes that federal subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. The Petition does not allege a cause of action under federal law. Nor does the Petition allege any substantial, disputed question of federal law as a necessary element of one of the well- pleaded state-law claims.

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

Gioia v. Patterson, Belknap, Webb, & Tyler · filed 2023-10-12

Here, although Plaintiff seeks to invoke this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1331 she has not alleged a colorable federal claim.

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

Gioia v. SouthEnd Psychiatry · filed 2023-10-12

Here, although Plaintiff seeks to invoke this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1331 she has not alleged a colorable federal claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when no federal claim remains and the remaining claims arise under state law.

Weekly v. United States of America · filed 2023-10-13

Without an active FTCA claim, and with the United States dismissed as a defendant to this action, the Court lacks either federal question jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or jurisdiction because the United States is a defendant, see 28 U.S.C. § 1346.

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

Curran III v. Brookstone Home Owners Association, Inc. · filed 2023-10-13

A plaintiff properly invokes federal- question jurisdiction when he or she pleads a colorable claim “arising under” the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint pleads no colorable claim arising under federal law.

Morris v. Melling · filed 2023-10-17

Consequently, even viewed in a generous light, Plaintiffs have not pled a colorable claim arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. Plaintiffs’ claims do not involve a federal question of law and thus do not provide the Court with subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff states no federal claim against any defendant.

Williams v. Adams · filed 2023-10-19

Nor has he stated a federal claim against any defendant conferring federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a colorable federal claim; a claim so patently without merit cannot establish federal question jurisdiction.

Daniels v. Novant Health Inc · filed 2023-10-20

Here, although Daniels purports to raise federal claims under the RICO Act and Section 1983, his claims are so “patently without merit” as to deprive the Court of federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a plausible claim under federal law or the Constitution; checking a federal-question box does not establish jurisdiction when the alleged facts state no federal claim.

Stephenson v. Children's Hospital of Wisconsin Inc · filed 2023-10-27

Federal question jurisdiction exists when a plaintiff makes a plausible claim that someone has violated her rights under the Constitution or has violated the laws of the United States.

Federal-question jurisdiction requires a sufficiently colorable federal claim; claims devoid of merit cannot support it.

Sharma v. Cole · filed 2023-11-07

Since Sharma has not asserted any viable federal claims, this Court lacks subject- matter jurisdiction over this action and it must be dismissed unless another basis for exercising jurisdiction is evident on the face of the Complaint.

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

Bornemann v. The State of South Carolina · filed 2023-11-09

Specifically, the Report finds that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the Court has federal question jurisdiction because “Plaintiff provides no allegations, lists no causes of action, or raises any claims that could state a cognizable federal claim.” ... For the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge, the Report, ECF No. 12, is accepted.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction after the complaint’s federal claim has been dismissed.

Butler v. Johnson & Johnson · filed 2023-11-17

Given the dismissal of Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim (see supra), federal question subject matter jurisdiction does not lie in this Court.

Section 1331 does not itself supply a federal claim; the claim must arise under federal law, a treaty, or the Constitution.

Sanders v. Carro · filed 2023-12-11

Beginning with 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this statutory provision describes the instances when federal district courts have federal question jurisdiction (i.e., in “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”) This provision, on its own, is unhelpful to Sanders because he still needs to provide a federal law, treaty, or provision of the United States Constitution out of which his claims against Carro arise.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a claim based on federal law for federal-question jurisdiction.

Olio v. Sethi, MD · filed 2023-12-14

To arise under federal question jurisdiction, the complaint must have a claim based on a federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Subbotovskiy v. Touro University · filed 2023-12-20

Accordingly, Plaintiff has not alleged a colorable Section 1983 claim, and, in turn, has not properly invoked this Court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the federal laws cited have no relation to the facts underlying the claim.

El v. Coleman · filed 2023-12-22

The Complaint states that federal question jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the case arises under two federal laws. ... Neither law has any conceivable relation to the factual ... allegations on which Plaintiff bases its claim that Defendants—an individual and two limited liability companies—have breached a contract for Plaintiff’s investment in a cannabis operation licensed by the Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims after the only federal claim is dismissed.

Nutter v. Family Dollar Stores of Ohio, LLC · filed 2023-12-27

Because no question of federal law remains pending before this court, this court no longer has federal question jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 provides no continuing federal-question jurisdiction when the only federal claim has been dismissed and no federal-law question remains.

Nutter v. Family Dollar Stores of Ohio, LLC · filed 2023-12-28

Because no question of federal law remains pending before this court, this court no longer has federal question jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a colorable federal claim even when the claim’s merits are disputed.

Doody v. Bank of America, N.A. · filed 2024-01-02

Accordingly, despite Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Seterus’s first argument, dismissal for lack of federal question jurisdiction is inappropriate in light of Seterus’s failure to meet its burden to show that Plaintiff’s FDCPA claim is not colorable.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the allegations show no viable claim under federal law.

Jones v. Roth · filed 2024-01-02

Plaintiff’s allegations suggest no other viable claim against Defendant under federal law. The Court therefore does not have federal question jurisdiction of this action.

Section 1331 requires a colorable federal claim; a civil claim under a federal criminal statute that provides no basis for civil liability does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Currie v. Catholic Charities · filed 2024-01-05

So, Plaintiff’s claim under 18 U.S.C. § 242 fails as a matter of law and is not a “colorable claim” that can provide the basis for her federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to allege a legitimate claim under federal law to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Whidbee v. DeBenedittis · filed 2024-01-12

As previously noted however, even construing the Complaint in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, Plaintiff does not allege a legitimate claim under a federal law. Thus, Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged that this Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides that “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

Section 1331 requires facts supporting a claim arising under federal law; merely invoking federal jurisdiction is insufficient.

Dickerson v. Dickerson · filed 2024-01-12

Mere invocation of federal jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction. ... Plaintiff thus has not stated a claim against Defendant under Section 1983, and the facts alleged do not give rise to any other claims arising under federal law or suggest a violation of Plaintiff’s federally protected rights.

Federal-question jurisdiction is unavailable when the asserted federal claims cannot be brought or adequately pleaded.

Ulbin v. FedEx Ship Center · filed 2024-01-16

Because Plaintiff cannot bring criminal statutes as claims and does not state a claim for civil RICO, Plaintiff has failed to invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a colorable federal claim for federal question jurisdiction.

Johnson v. Veritas Investment Inc · filed 2024-01-26

Because no colorable federal claim is asserted, this Court lacks federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal claim; a passing reference to due process does not establish federal-question jurisdiction when the pleading does not raise a due-process claim.

Rainy Gibson v. Tip Towing and Recovery LLC · filed 2024-02-16

A federal district court “ha[s] original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Although Gibson’s pleading mentioned the phrase “due process of law” in passing in her request for damages, it does not appear that she intended for that pleading to raise a due-process claim in addition to her trespass claim.

Section 1331 does not establish federal-question jurisdiction merely because a plaintiff cites it; the complaint must state a federal claim.

Trisvan v. The Mildred Elley School · filed 2024-02-20

Specifically, although Plaintiff referenced 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the federal question jurisdiction statute, he did not state a federal claim.

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

Silver v. Cuyahoga County · filed 2024-03-06

District courts “have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... The Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiff fails to allege a federal claim.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction when a plaintiff pleads a colorable claim arising under federal law.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Nowak · filed 2024-03-28

District courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 when a plaintiff “pleads a colorable claim ‘arising under’ the . . . laws of the United States.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513 (2006). Chase does so here, as it pleads claims under RICO, a federal statute.

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

Dyce v. Macy's Inc. and Federated Department Stores Inc. · filed 2024-04-04

A plaintiff properly invokes jurisdiction under Section 1331 “when she pleads a colorable claim ‘arising under’ the Constitution or laws of the United States.”

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

Hodge v. New York Unemployment · filed 2024-04-08

Because the complaint does not raise a colorable federal claim or plead facts establishing complete diversity, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction and the action must be dismissed.

Section 1331 requires a substantial federal claim; passing references to federal statutes and an implausible federal claim do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Jones v. Richmond Auto Auction of Virginia, Inc. · filed 2024-04-18

Because Mr. Jones makes only passing references to the federal statutes he mentions, and because Mr. Jones fails to plausibly state a claim under the FLSA, the Court concludes that he has failed to assert a substantial federal claim. Accordingly, the Court may not exercise federal question jurisdiction over this action.

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

Maupins-Oswago v. Kansas Department of Labor · filed 2024-04-19

Plaintiff’s Complaint doesn’t allege any federal claims sufficient to establish federal question subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction when a complaint, even liberally construed, alleges no colorable federal claim.

Gioia v. SouthEnd Psychiatry · filed 2024-04-19

The removed action does not allege a federal question such that this Court’s federal question subject matter jurisdiction could properly be invoked.

Section 1331 requires a colorable claim arising under federal law; a HIPAA claim with no private right of action cannot establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Peoples v. Cuyahoga County Children and Family Services · filed 2024-04-23

To establish federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Plaintiff must “plead[ ] a colorable claim ‘arising under’ the Constitution or laws of the United States.” Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513 (2006). ... Plaintiffs claim under HIPAA falls into this category. ... That claim fails as a matter of law and cannot be the basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction.

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

Moore v. Pacific View Apartments Carlsbad LLC · filed 2024-04-24

To the extent Plaintiff is asserting claims under federal law, she must plead a colorable claim “arising under” the Constitution or laws of the United States to invoke federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. ... Because Plaintiff fails to sufficiently allege claims arising under federal law, she fails to establish federal question subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim with an embedded federal issue unless that issue is substantial under the Grable-Gunn test.

Getz v. Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. · filed 2024-04-25

I agree with the plaintiff that the issue is not substantial under the Grable-Gunn test. Because this requirement is not met, I do not address the parties’ arguments concerning the federal-state balance.

Section 1331 requires a complaint invoking federal-question jurisdiction to identify a claim arising under federal law.

Muller v. PNC Bank · filed 2024-04-29

In the Complaint, Plaintiffs invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 but do not clearly state which cause(s) of action arise under federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction when the allegations suggest no viable federal claim.

Johnson v. 195 Mill Steet Market · filed 2024-04-29

Because Plaintiff’s allegations do not suggest any viable claim arising under the federal law, the Court lacks federal jurisdiction of this action.

Section 1331 requires facts supporting a federal-law claim; merely invoking federal jurisdiction is insufficient.

Franco v. Hyatt Corporation · filed 2024-04-29

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

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint, even liberally construed, asserts no federal claim.

Johnson v. Oranye · filed 2024-04-30

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Even liberally construed, Johnson does not assert any federal claims against any of the Defendants.

Section 1331 requires a plausible federal claim; a conclusory assertion of federal-question jurisdiction alone is insufficient.

Perkins Jr. v. Panorama Towers Condo Unit Owners, Dennis Kariger · filed 2024-05-07

Having liberally construed the FAC and affording Perkins, Jr. every benefit of the doubt, I cannot find that the FAC sets forth a plausible federal claim that gives rise to federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires factual allegations supporting a colorable claim arising under federal law or the Constitution for federal-question jurisdiction.

Minton v. Adams County Common Pleas Court · filed 2024-05-13

Because—as the Magistrate Judge recognized—no factual allegations within Plaintiff’s Complaint support a colorable claim that “aris[es] under” a federal statute or the United States Constitution, this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction of this civil action.

Section 1331 requires a federal claim for federal-question jurisdiction; it does not authorize a federal court to hear a case involving only state-law claims.

Stewart, Timothy v. Institution of Department of Workforce Development · filed 2024-05-16

Generally, a plaintiff suing in federal court must show either that he is raising a federal claim, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, known as federal-question jurisdiction, or that he and the defendants are citizens of different states and that more than $75,000 is in controversy, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, known as diversity jurisdiction. ... But without a federal claim this court cannot consider a case involving purely state-law claims given that Stewart alleges that both he and at least some of the defendants are Wisconsin citizens.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims that do not assert a basis under federal law.

Burns v. Burns · filed 2024-05-21

Plaintiff does not assert a claim against them pursuant to federal law. ... Plaintiff has not established federal subject-matter jurisdiction for the claims against these de- fendants.

Section 1331 requires a colorable federal claim; a wholly insubstantial and frivolous claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Adams v. Hernandez · filed 2024-05-28

Adams’ claim under 18 U.S.C. § 371 is wholly insubstantial and frivolous. Consequently, Adams’ complaint fails to present any colorable federal issue or claim and does not provide the Court with a basis to exercise federal question jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint fails to allege a federal claim.

Williams v. Pelosi · filed 2024-06-11

Here, even afforded a liberal construction, Plaintiff’s complaint has failed to allege a federal claim such that the Court’s federal question subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 may be invoked.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction on removal when the operative complaint at the time of removal no longer asserts a federal claim.

Robinson v. Southern Health Partners, Inc. · filed 2024-06-14

Defendants relied upon the original Complaint in removing this matter based upon federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 even though that Complaint was no longer the operative pleading. (Notice Removal 2). Because Plaintiffs had abandoned their federal claim by omitting that claim from the FAC, there was no federal claim pending at the time of removal.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a § 1983 claim when the alleged state action raises a substantial federal question, even if the allegations do not adequately state a claim.

Monbo v. Upper Chesapeake Medical Center, Inc. · filed 2024-06-27

The state action question is thus not “so clearly lacking as to make the federal question insubstantial for jurisdictional purposes.”

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction ceases when an amended complaint eliminates the federal cause of action and leaves only state-law claims.

Buck v. Cornerstone Building Brands Services, Inc. · filed 2024-07-01

However, once Plaintiff amended her complaint and eliminated her Title VII cause of action, federal- question jurisdiction ceased to exist as all remaining claims arise under West Virginia state law.

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

Smith v. Minicucci · filed 2024-07-11

Because Smith does not assert a claim under federal law, the Court does not have subject matter of his claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint fails to sufficiently plead a federal claim.

Folks v. Virgil Brown & Associates Law Firm · filed 2024-07-18

In circumstances where a plaintiff invokes the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, but fails to sufficiently plead any federal claim, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires nonfrivolous allegations supporting a federal claim to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

EAVES v. KOVARIK · filed 2024-07-22

All told, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to set forth any nonfrivolous allegations supporting federal question jurisdiction in this case. ... Hence, neither federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 nor diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) are properly invoked in this case.

Section 1331 requires a substantial federal issue to support federal-question jurisdiction over a territorial-law claim.

Impex Trading International, Inc. v. USVI · filed 2024-07-26

After considering the relevant substantiality factors in light of the totality of the circumstances in this case, the Court does not believe the federal issue raised by the plaintiffs is ultimately substantial.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a territorial law claim with an embedded federal issue only if that issue is substantial to the federal system, among other requirements.

B&B Manufacturing, Inc. v. United States Virgin Islands · filed 2024-07-26

After considering the relevant substantiality factors in light of the totality of the circumstances in this case, the Court does not believe the federal issue raised by the plaintiffs is ultimately substantial.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a territorial law claim unless the federal issue it raises is substantial.

United Corporation v. USVI · filed 2024-07-26

After considering the relevant substantiality factors in light of the totality of the circumstances in this case, the Court does not believe the federal issue raised by the plaintiffs is ultimately substantial.

Section 1331 does not provide original federal-question jurisdiction over a territorial-law claim when the federal issue it raises is not substantial.

MSI Building Supplies, Inc. v. The United States Virgin Islands · filed 2024-07-26

In this case, irrespective of whether the plaintiffs may be able to show that a federal issue is necessarily raised and actually disputed,28 the Court is unpersuaded that the federal issues involved in these territorial law claims are substantial.

Section 1331 requires a substantial federal claim; citing a federal statute alone does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Woodly v. Baltimore Gas & Electric · filed 2024-08-06

But a plaintiff cannot establish subject matter jurisdiction simply by citing to a federal statute. ... Claims III and IV are so facially deficient that they fail to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits dismissal for lack of federal-question jurisdiction when a purported federal claim is immaterial and asserted solely to obtain jurisdiction, or is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Evans-Williams v. Sunstates Management Corporation · filed 2024-08-08

A federal court may dismiss a claim invoking federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction only if the claim “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, 546 U.S. at 513 n.10.

Section 1331 permits dismissal for lack of federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted federal claim is immaterial and made solely to obtain jurisdiction or is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Burroughs v. Keesler Federal Credit Union · filed 2024-08-08

A federal court may dismiss a claim invoking federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction only if the claim “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, 546 U.S. at 513 n.10.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction when a plaintiff pleads a colorable claim arising under federal law.

Gibbons v. Brookside Properties, Inc. · filed 2024-08-09

A plaintiff properly invokes Section 1331 jurisdiction when she pleads a colorable claim “arising under” the Constitution or laws of the United States. ... Gibbons’ “well-pleaded Complaint” presents a question arising under Title VII.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over claims based on federal law; a complaint that asserts no federal claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Richards v. Sharnette · filed 2024-08-13

Congress has granted two types of subject-matter jurisdiction: (1) diversity jurisdiction, under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, over “certain cases between citizens of different states, so long as the requirements of complete diversity and amount in controversy are met”; and (2) federal question jurisdiction, under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, over claims based on federal law. ... And even liberally construed, the complaint asserts no federal claim; there is no indication, for example, of state action sufficient to sustain a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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

J.S. v. Kent School District · filed 2024-09-05

And because he has failed to “properly invoke[] § 1331 jurisdiction” by pleading “a colorable claim ‘arising under’ the Constitution or laws of the United States,” the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to allege a federal claim to invoke federal-question jurisdiction, even when the complaint is liberally construed.

Williams v. Pelosi · filed 2024-09-09

After reviewing Plaintiff's complaint, Magistrate Judge Dancks concluded that, "even afforded a liberal construction, Plaintiff's complaint has failed to allege a federal claim such that the Court's federal question subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 may be invoked." ... Accordingly, for the above-stated reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Dancks' June 11, 2024 Report-Recommendation is ACCEPTED in its entirety for the reasons stated therein; and the Court further ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall edit the docket text of Dkt. No. 7 to indicate that Plaintiff's submission is a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and close this case.

Section 1331 requires a nonfrivolous allegation of entitlement to relief under federal law to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

EAVES v. BENSON LINCOLN MERCURY, INC. · filed 2024-09-13

... he has failed to set forth any nonfrivolous allegations stating a claim establishing federal question jurisdiction; and, there is no basis for retaining supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims against non-diverse Defendants.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under the federal Constitution or federal law; invoking federal-question jurisdiction alone does not establish it.

Burgher v. Wisconsin Lottery · filed 2024-09-16

Although she indicated that she was attempting to proceed on federal-question jurisdiction, Plaintiff’s complaint does not raise a federal claim.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a federal claim that is not insubstantial, even when the claim’s merits remain disputed.

Moser v. The Virginia Retirement System · filed 2024-10-03

On that basis, Moser’s Eighth Amendment claim is not insubstantial; rather, it is “something to be litigated and determined.” Reddy, 38 F.4th at 399. Because this case is “otherwise within [the court’s] jurisdiction” under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, Hagans, 415 U.S. at 536, the court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this case.

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

MJH LIFE SCIENCES, LLC v. PSL GROUP AMERICA INC. · filed 2024-10-07

Indeed, Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint states no claim under federal law, and thus there is no basis for jurisdiction under Section 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because it raises a disputed federal issue; the issue must be substantial to the federal system as a whole.

Infucare Rx, Inc. v. Express Scripts, Inc. · filed 2024-10-09

However, it does not appear to the Court that the federal question is substantial to the federal system as a whole such that this Court should exercise jurisdiction.

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

Victory v. Bank of America · filed 2024-10-15

But because Plaintiff does not allege any colorable federal claims, he does not properly invoke this type of jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a colorable federal claim; merely mentioning federal law does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Gamarra v. Supervisor Paul · filed 2024-10-17

However, merely mentioning a federal law is insufficient to properly invoke federal question subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a removed action when its only federal claim is not viable.

Norman v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company N.A. as Trustee of Mortgage Management Assets Series 1 Trust · filed 2024-10-21

Because TILA is the only claim asserted by the plaintiffs that arises under federal law, and because PHH removed this action from state court based on federal question jurisdiction, see Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1, the Court lacks jurisdiction in the absence of a viable TILA claim.

Section 1331 requires facts showing a claim arising under federal law; merely invoking federal-question jurisdiction is insufficient.

Zoccoli v. Progressive Ins Garden State Underwriters · filed 2024-10-21

Mere invocation of federal question jurisdiction, however, without any facts demonstrating a claim under federal law, does not create federal question jurisdiction. ... Plaintiff alleges nothing to suggest that his claims fall under the court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law dispute that states no colorable federal claim, even when the dispute concerns payment of a federal attorney-fee award.

Gentry v. Tennessee Department of Treasury · filed 2024-10-24

It is not premised upon diversity jurisdiction, and it does not state a colorable claim under federal law. Instead, it asks the court, again, to wade into the issue of which governmental entity should be required to fund the attorney fee award entered against the Clerk’s Office.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to plausibly allege a claim arising under federal law; state-law claims alone do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Zayas v. City of Seattle · filed 2024-10-24

Federal question jurisdiction, a form of subject matter jurisdiction,2 exists when a claim arises from the United States’ Constitution, law, or treaties. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... The complaint must include specific facts that plausibly allege a federal claim. Plaintiff affirmatively asserts the following causes of action: wrongful death, medical malpractice, and gross negligence. (Id. at 4.) None of which are federal claims (as they are all based on state law).

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

Card v. All City Bail Bonds · filed 2024-11-13

And because he has failed to “properly invoke[] § 1331 jurisdiction” by pleading “a colorable claim ‘arising under’ the Constitution or laws of the United States,” the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a colorable § 1983 claim alleging a constitutional violation.

May v. Johnson · filed 2024-11-19

Because May’s constitutional claim under § 1983 is properly “determined by application of . . . federal law,” the court has jurisdiction over the claim.

State-law claims do not arise under § 1331 when their federal issues are not substantial.

Kallman v. Kallmant · filed 2024-11-20

The Court disagrees; the remaining ... claims do not “arise under federal law[] because the federal issue[s] would not be substantial.”

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

Jennison v. Allen Superior Court Small Claims Division 2 · filed 2024-11-26

To proceed in federal court, a plaintiff has the burden to establish subject matter jurisdiction, which is ordinarily accomplished through federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Liberally construing plaintiff’s filings, she does not state a claim for violation of any federal law or Constitutional provision. Indeed, absent an allegation that the Defendants have deprived her of a right secured by federal law, her attempt to challenge her eviction is purely a state law claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction after the only claim arising under federal law is dismissed.

Premium Merchant Funding 18, LLC v. Honan · filed 2024-12-02

The Sixth Cause of Action is the only claim in suit that arises under federal law. Its dismissal means that jurisdiction does not lie in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires allegations showing a federal law claim; mentioning federal statutes without facts establishing such a claim does not establish federal question jurisdiction.

MCMILLAN v. AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY · filed 2024-12-10

While Plaintiff mentions federal statutes and regulations, her allegations do not show that the court has federal question jurisdiction of her claims. Thus, inasmuch as Plaintiff invokes the court’s federal question jurisdiction, the Court dismisses her claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a colorable claim arising under federal law; allegations that identify no applicable federal law, constitutional provision, or treaty do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Simonetti v. Simonetti · filed 2024-12-18

Second, neither has Plaintiff established federal question jurisdiction. Federal question subject matter jurisdiction may be established pursuant to § 1331 where a claim arises under the “Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “A plaintiff properly invokes § 1331 jurisdiction when he pleads a colorable claim ‘arising under’ the Constitution or laws of the United States.” Arbaugh., 546 U.S. at 513. ... Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to properly invoke this Court’s federal question subject matter jurisdiction.

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

Maney v. Unknown · filed 2025-01-03

Neither has Plaintiff identified a federal question, nor can the Court discern one.

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

Malik v. Pediatrix Medical Group · filed 2025-01-22

A Plaintiff properly invokes federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 when he “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 has not cited to a single federal statute which could provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction and none can be found on the face of the Complaint.

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

Uzir v. Mian · filed 2025-01-22

Plaintiff has not alleged any facts to suggest a Fourteenth Amendment claim or any other claim based in federal law that would satisfy federal question.

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

Herrera v. Torres · filed 2025-01-23

Plaintiff does not in fact assert any claim under federal law, however, so she must satisfy § 1332’s requirements for diversity jurisdiction, which are that “the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000” and “complete diversity exist[ed] between the parties” at the time the complaint was filed.

Section 1331 requires a federal claim in the complaint; citing a federal statute as a jurisdictional basis without asserting a claim under it does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Central Mutual Insurance v. Niram Incorporated · filed 2025-01-24

Therefore, the Complaint is devoid of a claim under the Carmack Amendment and CMI has failed to properly invoke this Court’s federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to state or suggest a federal claim to invoke federal-question jurisdiction.

Reed v. Pinnacle Properties LLC. · filed 2025-01-31

And Reed’s complaint does not expressly state or suggest a federal claim as required to invoke 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a colorable claim arising under federal law or the Constitution even if the plaintiff ultimately has no right to relief.

Algazali v. Blinken · filed 2025-01-31

Each of the FAC’s causes of action gives rise to federal question jurisdiction because each claim is asserted either under a federal statute or the U.S. Constitution. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Defendants are incorrect that subject matter jurisdiction cannot rest on certain claims on which Plaintiffs lack a right to relief because subject matter jurisdiction requires a plaintiff only to “plead[] a colorable claim arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States,” Ozaltin v. Ozaltin, 708 F.3d 355, 371 n.23 (2d Cir. 2013), which Plaintiffs did.

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

Henck v. Chase Nissan LLC · filed 2025-02-08

Because Henck’s claims are foreclosed by precedent, the Court finds that they are wholly immaterial and that Henck has not raised a colorable Lanham Act claim, and will dismiss the claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a colorable federal claim in the complaint; citing federal statutes on a civil cover sheet does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Harris v. City National Bank · filed 2025-02-10

In an abundance of caution, the Court considered whether the Complaint asserted any colorable federal claims that would invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, but has found none. ... Although the civil cover sheet (Dkt. No. 1-2), cites “18 U.S.C. §§ 1961–68 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations,” and cites several criminal statutes, the Complaint does not refer to these statutes and, even read liberally, asserts no viable federal claims.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint, even liberally construed, states no federal claim and challenges only an employer’s internal leave policy.

Davis v. Penske Logistics LLC · filed 2025-02-11

Instead, even the most liberal reading of the Complaint is that Davis is simply challenging the interpretation and application of Penske’s internal leave policy. Thus, there is no federal claim, so there is no federal-question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts only state law claims.

Sines v. Fulton County of · filed 2025-02-28

Unable to identify any federal claims, the court concludes that the complaint consists of only state law claims. As a result, the only possible basis for subject matter jurisdiction would be diversity of the citizenship between the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction); 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity jurisdiction); 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (supplemental jurisdiction).

Section 1331 does not provide original jurisdiction when there is no colorable federal claim.

(PS) Liam Meyer Irrevocable Trust v. Chan · filed 2025-03-04

The court has reviewed the file and agrees with the magistrate judge there is no colorable federal claim and therefore the court does not have original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Patterson v. Minfield · filed 2025-03-13

And it is well established that federal-question ju- risdiction does not exist if the plaintiff’s only federal claims are not colorable.

Section 1331 does not establish federal-question jurisdiction over claims against defendants when the complaint alleges no violation of federal law or the Constitution by them.

CRISDON v. NORTHGATE I · filed 2025-03-25

Finally, although Plaintiff asserts that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, Plaintiff does not point to any violation of federal law or the Constitution of the United States with respect to Defendants Northgate I, Allied Universal Security Services, and Asha Taylor.