28 U.S.C. § 1331

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

Woods Cove III, LLC v. Fipps · filed 2021-11-29

Although Mr. Fipps asserts in his Notice of Removal that he seeks to remove the state action on the basis of a “Federal Question” (Doc. No. 1 at 1), he has failed to demonstrate a valid basis for federal question jurisdiction. Removal jurisdiction based on a federal question is proper “only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). The complaint in the state action on its face alleges no cause of action arising under federal law.

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

City of Los Angeles v. Homeless Free America · filed 2021-12-14

The federal question must appear on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint, which it does not here.

Section 1331 requires a well-pleaded federal question on the face of the complaint; a conditional federal-law allegation that is not essential to the plaintiff’s claims does not establish jurisdiction.

Hunter v. Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company · filed 2021-12-14

This statute has been interpreted to mean that federal jurisdiction only exists when a federal question is well-pleaded on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint. ... This allegation does not raise a federal claim that warrants subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal question jurisdiction only when the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint raises an issue of federal law.

Peralta v. CK Greenhouse Inc. · filed 2021-12-22

First, plaintiff’s Complaint does not give rise to federal question jurisdiction. “A cause of action arises under federal law only when the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint raises an issue of federal law.” ... The Complaint does not cite to any provision of federal law, nor assert any violation of federal Constitutional rights. Accordingly, the Court does not have jurisdiction over this matter based on a federal question.

Section 1331 requires a well pleaded complaint to raise a federal question; a complaint alleging no violation of federal law or a constitutional right does not establish federal question jurisdiction.

Colvin v. Hess · filed 2022-01-12

Generally, subject matter jurisdiction exists where the well pleaded complaint raises a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or the parties meet the diversity and amount in controversy requirements under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. ... She does not cite a violation of any federal law, statute, or constitutional right giving rise to a federal question.

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

J. P. Morgan Chase Bank. N.A. v. D'ANGELO, SR. · filed 2022-01-18

Because the RICO Act allegation arises only in a counterclaim, it is insufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; a state-law unlawful-detainer claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction merely because a notice references federal law.

(UD)(PS) Wells Fargo Bank v. Sherzad · filed 2022-01-19

The instant Complaint therefore relies solely on California state law and does not state any claims under federal law. ... Defendants have failed to establish their burden of showing that jurisdiction before this Court is proper based on federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over an unlawful detainer action when the complaint presents no federal question on its face.

Herrera v. Herrera · filed 2022-01-21

Here, there is no federal question apparent from the face of the Complaint, which appears to allege only a simple unlawful detainer cause of action.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint; a counterclaim does not create federal-question jurisdiction.

Credit Corp Solutions, Inc. v. McAdory · filed 2022-01-24

Second, subject matter jurisdiction exists over civil actions “arising under” federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A claim arises under federal law “when a federal question is presented on the face of plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.” See Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). No federal claim is stated on the face of the Complaint. Any counterclaim by Plaintiff does not create a federal question under the well pleaded complaint rule.

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; a defendant’s constitutional defenses or counterclaims do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Towd Point Mortgage Trust 2019-3, U.S. Bank National Association v. Mead · filed 2022-01-28

Federal-question jurisdiction must arise from a plaintiff’s “well-pleaded complaint” or petition. ... And Mead’s potential constitutional defenses or counterclaims are irrelevant to the jurisdictional inquiry.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of a properly pleaded complaint; a state-law unlawful detainer claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Museum Center, LLC v. Mankin · filed 2022-02-04

“The presence or absence of federal- question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.” ... The Complaint is for unlawful detainer, which arises entirely under state law.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the complaint; a defendant’s belief that a state-law claim may implicate federal law is insufficient.

Tashombe v. Truist Bank · filed 2022-02-07

Federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 requires a civil action to arise under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. ... That Defendant believes that the Plaintiff’s claims might touch upon the FCRA is not sufficient to satisfy the “well-pleaded complaint” rule.

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

IP Management LLC v. Harris · filed 2022-02-07

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal question jurisdiction exists “only when a federal question is presented on the face of the Plaintiff’s properly pleaded Complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987).

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the complaint presents no federal question and the removing defendants fail to establish that the artful-pleading doctrine applies.

Avalon Morrison Park Apartments, LLC v. Master · filed 2022-02-08

The face of the Complaint does not present a federal question, and Defendants have failed to show that the artful pleading doctrine applies, despite multiple opportunities to do so.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to arise from the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; an anticipated federal defense does not confer jurisdiction.

Maher v. Nusret New York LLC · filed 2022-02-14

The well-pleaded complaint rule remains viable and requires the federal question to arise from the plaintiff’s pleading and not an anticipated defense to that pleading.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; defenses and counterclaims do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

3139 Mount Whitney Rd. Trust Dated 06/14/2021 v. Toner · filed 2022-02-15

However, neither defenses nor counterclaims are considered in evaluating whether a federal question appears on the face of a Plaintiff’s complaint. ... As such, Defendant does not establish federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and removal on this ground was improper.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction only when a federal question appears on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; a federal defense or counterclaim does not suffice.

HSBC Bank USA v. Coria · filed 2022-02-18

Subject matter jurisdiction exists over civil actions “arising under” federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A claim arises under federal law “when a federal question is presented on the face of plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” See Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Plaintiff’s Complaint herein contains a single cause of action for unlawful detainer, a state law claim. There is no federal question jurisdiction even if there is a federal defense to the claim or a counterclaim arising under federal law. See Caterpillar, Inc., 482 U.S. at 392-93. This is a simple state law unlawful detainer case, and there is no federal question presented on the face of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to identify an asserted federal claim and its factual basis clearly enough to establish federal-question jurisdiction; citations to federal provisions alone left that basis unclear.

Williams v. Vista · filed 2022-02-18

As to federal question jurisdiction, although the complaint cites to various federal statutes and constitutional amendments, it is not clear, for the reasons given above, which, if any, of these references are intended to allege a claim against the named Defendants and what the factual bases of those claims may be.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law retaliation claim merely because the complaint cites Title VII caselaw when it alleges no discrimination required for a Title VII claim.

Showalter v. Boise County · filed 2022-02-18

Though the Complaint recites the prima facie elements of a Title VII claim as stated by the Defendants, it does not appear that Showalter is masking a Title VII claim as a state law claim here because he did not allege any type of discrimination requisite for a federal Title VII claim. ... Simply put, Defendants have not met their burden in proving there is federal subject matter jurisdiction, so the Court must remand.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; a defendant’s federal claim or defense does not create federal jurisdiction.

Woods Cove III, LLC v. Fipps · filed 2022-02-18

A defendant’s attempt to insert a federal claim or defense into a State action, however, does not create federal jurisdiction. Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is proper “only when a ... federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.”

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a federal defense cannot supply federal-question jurisdiction.

District of Columbia v. Vizion One, Inc. · filed 2022-02-22

In determining whether federal law is involved for the purposes of federal question jurisdiction, courts look to the four corners of a plaintiff’s complaint, not to the defendant’s asserted defenses.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction depends on the claims in the plaintiff’s complaint, not potential or asserted federal counterclaims.

PAJELA v. PRINCE · filed 2022-02-22

But again, the Court is guided by the claims that Plaintiff asserts in the Complaint, not potential (or asserted) counterclaims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a removed state-law foreclosure action when federal issues arise only from defenses or counterclaims.

Bank of New York Mellon v. Hegedus · filed 2022-03-02

However, as stated under the well-pleaded complaint rule, defenses and counterclaims do not create federal court jurisdiction. This Court does not have jurisdiction by reason of a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Rick Hawthorne v. Jacobowitz · filed 2022-03-11

Under the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” § 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction “only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer complaint does not reference any federal laws.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts original jurisdiction when the well-pleaded complaint expressly bases a claim for recovery on federal law.

Smart Mortgage Centers, Inc. v. Noe · filed 2022-03-21

Smart Mortgage expressly relies on the DTSA and CFAA as the basis for recovery in counts XIV and XV. See SAC 47, 56. Both claims therefore satisfy the well-pleaded complaint rule.

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

Medesimo Tempo v. Skull Valley Health Care · filed 2022-03-28

Because no federal question appears on the face of the complaint, the well-pleaded complaint rule does not give rise to federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

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

Grayes v. Santiago · filed 2022-03-28

Federal subject-matter jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 when a claim arising under federal law is presented on the face of a well-pleaded complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; a complaint stating only a state-law unlawful detainer claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

(UD)(PS)Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Sherzad · filed 2022-03-29

The instant Complaint therefore relies solely on California state law and does not state any claims under federal law. ... Defendants have failed to establish their burden of showing that jurisdiction before this Court is proper based on federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the complaint; a defendant’s investigation suggesting an unpleaded federal claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Tashombe v. Truist Bank · filed 2022-04-04

Federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 requires a civil action to arise under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. ... The “[w]ell-pleaded complaint” rule requires a federal question to be present on the face of the complaint at the time of removal for federal question jurisdiction to exist. ... Defendant has shown no basis for its claim that Plaintiff’s small claims breach of contract action seeking $9,000 in damages in fact arises under the FCRA.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges only a state-law claim and federal issues arise only from later arbitration motions.

Sally v. Panera Bread Company · filed 2022-04-13

Therefore, this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and the Court must remand the case.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction under Grable only when the federal issue appears on the face of the well-pleaded complaint.

Box v. PetroTel · filed 2022-04-27

Therefore, a plaintiff invoking Grable as the basis for federal jurisdiction must still show that the alleged federal issue arises on the face of the state court petition.

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

Banks v. Beauchamps · filed 2022-04-29

Because a federal question was not raised in Beauchamps’ properly pleaded complaint filed in Mahoning County Juvenile Court, this action cannot be removed to federal court.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint pleads state-law claims and a vague reference to other possible claims does not establish a federal cause of action.

Flettrich v. Chevron Oronite Company L.L.C. · filed 2022-05-03

Plaintiff purposefully pled only state law causes of action. The addition of the statement “any other causes of action that are applicable to the facts described herein,” could just as easily be read to include other state law claims rather than federal. ... Although this statement may be construed to allow the addition of federal claims, on its own the statement is ambiguous, and therefore must be construed against removal.

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the plaintiff’s original complaint; a defendant’s counterclaims or third-party claims cannot establish federal-question jurisdiction.

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. SEQUEIRA · filed 2022-05-06

Here, the Court analyzes Plaintiffs original Complaint to determine jurisdiction, not Defendants’ pleadings, counterclaims, or defenses.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint to support jurisdiction over a removed case.

Eckstein v. Brame · filed 2022-05-09

The Court cannot discern a basis for federal question jurisdiction in this matter. District courts have original federal question jurisdiction over cases “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In determining whether an action has been properly removed to federal court, the Court must examine the face of the state court plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of a properly pleaded complaint; a complaint identifying no constitutional provision or federal statutory right does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Rucker v. Healthpoint · filed 2022-05-11

This fails to establish federal question jurisdiction under the well pleaded complaint rule.

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

B&B Prospector Properties v. Vega International · filed 2022-05-12

Here, it is clear that a federal question is not presented on the face of Plaintiffs complaint. Plaintiff asserts a single cause of action under Utah law for breach of contract. Defendant purports to remove this action based on the federal claims contained in what is best described as a counterclaim. However, as stated, a case may not be removed to federal court based solely on a counterclaim.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of a properly pleaded complaint; an unspecified claim of a federal right does not establish jurisdiction.

Rucker v. Kaiser Permanente of Washington · filed 2022-05-12

Her complaint does not otherwise identify a provision of the U.S. Constitution or any federal statutory right that has been violated (see generally id.) and none are readily apparent to the court. Thus, her complaint fails to establish federal question jurisdiction under the well pleaded complaint rule.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of a properly pleaded complaint; state-law claims alone do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

(PS) The Ruth Camel, Estate v. Weber · filed 2022-05-12

Further, the second amended complaint continues to focus on state law. ... “The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.”

Section 1331 does not provide original jurisdiction over a declaratory counterclaim whose federal question is a defense to the threatened action.

Unite Here Local 30 v. Sycuan Band · filed 2022-05-20

Although styled as a counterclaim for declaratory relief, Sycuan raises preemption as a defense to Unite Here’s claim. Under these circumstances, federal question jurisdiction cannot arise from such a defense.

Section 1331 requires a federal claim in the plaintiff’s complaint; a defendant cannot create federal question jurisdiction by asserting a federal defense.

(UD)(PS) Wells Fargo Bank, National Assoc. v. Sherzad · filed 2022-05-20

However, there are no federal claims or laws at issue and even if defendants asserted a defense based on federal law, which they do not, a defendant cannot create a federal question by asserting such a defense.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state trade-name infringement claim when the complaint presents no federal claim.

Horizon Roofing, Inc. v. Best And Fast Inc · filed 2022-06-07

The Court finds that Horizon’s Complaint does not assert any claim under the Lanham Act,2 and under the well- pleaded complaint rule, there is no claim in this action arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction when a well-pleaded complaint asserts a federal claim, unless the claim is immaterial and made solely to obtain jurisdiction or is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Kleiman v. Department of Energy · filed 1992-04-28

Unless “the alleged claim ... clearly appears to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction,” or “wholly insubstantial and frivolous,” Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682-83, 66 S.Ct. 773, 776, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946), plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint determines whether his suit “arises under” the laws of the United States for jurisdictional purposes.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear in the plaintiff’s claim; a defense or counterclaim cannot establish federal-question jurisdiction.

(UD)(PS)Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Sherzad · filed 2022-06-22

Federal question jurisdiction cannot rest upon an actual or anticipated defense or counterclaim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an unlawful detainer complaint that presents only a state-law claim on its face.

Bascom Avenue Development LLC v. Akbarzadeh · filed 2022-06-28

Federal question jurisdiction exists if an action arises “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... There is no federal question presented on the face of the complaint.

Section 1331 gives federal courts original jurisdiction when the complaint, on its face, alleges a violation of federal law.

ARCHIBALD v. AT&T D/B/A CELLULAR WORLD · filed 2022-07-06

But, because she asserted a violation of federal law (42 U.S.C. § 1983), her Complaint [Doc. 1-2], as it is currently drafted, gives the Court subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires the plaintiff’s complaint to show that the action is based on federal law.

(UD)(PS) Hartono v. Lewis · filed 2022-07-13

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

Section 1331 requires a federal question to arise from the complaint; a separate federal action, defense, or counterclaim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

S.J. Amoroso Construction Inc v. Boneso Brothers Construction Inc · filed 2022-07-13

Moreover, the fact that Boneso’s Miller Act Action is now pending in federal court does not provide a basis for the removal of the separate State Court Action. Even if Boneso’s Miller Act claim is analyzed as a defense or counterclaim in this case, rather than in its current posture as a separate case, defenses and counterclaims do not satisfy the requirement that the case “arise under” federal law.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction is determined from the claims in the plaintiff's complaint, not the defendant's counterclaims.

TD Bank, USA, NA v. Garrison · filed 2022-07-15

Third, an allegation of federal question jurisdiction is properly based upon the claims set forth in the plaintiff's complaint.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when sufficiently substantial federal claims appear in a well-pleaded complaint.

SYZYGY INTEGRATION LLC v. HARRIS · filed 2022-07-21

The court notes that federal question jurisdiction exists in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 due to the presence of sufficiently substantial federal claims in plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; a complaint alleging only a state-law claim does not qualify.

(UD)(PS) Secretary of Veterans Affairs v. Woodruff · filed 2022-07-25

The instant Complaint therefore relies solely on California state law and does not state any claims under federal law.

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

Annemid RI, LLC v. Griffin · filed 2022-07-28

Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, the focus is on what claims the plaintiff alleges in the complaint, and the fact that a defendant may raise federal law defenses or counterclaims does not allow the defendant to remove the case to a federal court.

Federal question jurisdiction cannot be established on removal without the underlying complaint showing that the action arises under federal law.

(PS) Chavez v. Chavez · filed 2022-08-16

Although Defendant removed this action based on federal question jurisdiction, the Court cannot determine whether the action arises under federal law without the underlying Complaint.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction for removal based on a federal defense or counterclaim.

Milestone Financial, LLC v. Escrow Doc · filed 2022-08-17

However, neither a federal defense nor a federal counterclaim forms a basis for removal.

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the well-pleaded complaint; a complaint alleging only state-law claims does not satisfy that requirement.

HORIZON BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF NEW JERSEY v. SPEECH & LANGUAGE CENTER, LLC · filed 2022-08-22

For a case to arise under federal law, the well-pleaded complaint must contain a question arising under federal law. See Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 808 (1986). The original complaint in this case, filed in September 2014, alleges only state law claims: insurance fraud, common law fraud, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation.

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

Gerber v. Forest View Center · filed 2022-08-22

However, Plaintiff’s Complaint pleads no federal claim on its face, instead alleging “garden-variety state law claims” of common-law negligence, gross negligence, wrongful death, and medical and nursing malpractice, as well as violations of New York Public Health Law.

Section 1331 requires a federal claim in the plaintiff’s complaint; a defendant cannot create federal-question jurisdiction by asserting a federal defense.

(UD)(PS) Canniffe v. Johnson · filed 2022-08-26

However, there are no federal claims or laws at issue and even if defendants asserted a defense based on federal law, which they do not, a defendant cannot create a federal question by asserting such a defense.

Section 1331 gives a court federal-question jurisdiction when the well-pleaded complaint asserts constitutional claims.

Braun v. Braun · filed 2022-08-31

Nevertheless, on the face of Plaintiff’s Complaint she asserts numerous constitutional claims such that, at this initial stage, under the well-pleaded complaint rule, the Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction.

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

Cavalry SPV I LLC v. Tripodi · filed 2022-09-20

But “[f]ederal jurisdiction cannot be predicated on an actual or anticipated defense” or “an actual or anticipated counterclaim.” ... Defendant therefore has not alleged federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 jurisdiction exists when a liberally construed pro se complaint asserts a federal claim, even if it refers to that claim only in passing.

Amerson v. Yavapai, County of · filed 2022-09-22

The general rule, known as the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” is that a civil action arises under federal law for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 when a federal question appears on the face of the complaint. ... Despite making only a passing reference to the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Court, applying a liberal construction of the Complaint, concludes that Plaintiffs assert an ADA claim – thus conferring jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint alleging only a state-law unlawful detainer claim.

(UD) (PS) TC the Confluence LP v. Cox · filed 2022-09-29

Because the Complaint indicates that the only cause of action is one for unlawful detainer, which arises solely under state law, this action does not arise under federal law.

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

Pacific Valley Bank v. Servi · filed 2022-09-30

Federal question jurisdiction requires that a federal issue appear on the face of the well-pleaded complaint.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a pleaded federal cause of action even if the complaint does not identify the specific statutory provision or adequately state the claim.

Gold v. National Default Servicing Corporation · filed 2022-10-05

While Plaintiff did not specify which section(s) of RESPA Defendants allegedly violated and simply concluded that Defendants’ “refus[al] to speak” with Plaintiff constituted a violation of RESPA, these issues go to the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s claims, not whether the Court has federal-question jurisdiction over the claims.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law to appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint.

Griffitts v. Griffitts · filed 2022-10-05

Federal subject-matter jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 when a claim arising under federal law is presented on the face of a well-pleaded complaint. ... No claim arising under federal law is discernible on the face of plaintiff’ s complaint, or on the face a pleading in an action he seeks to remove from state court.

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

Alexander v. Southside Auto Sales II · filed 2022-10-11

Further, Plaintiff fails to establish federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The “well-pleaded complaint” rule requires that “a federal question be presented on the face of the complaint.”

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

TD Bank USA, N.A. v. Dargan · filed 2022-10-12

Here, federal question jurisdiction is absent because no “federal question is presented on the face of plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.”

Section 1331 requires the federal question to appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint; a potential federal defense to a state-law claim does not establish jurisdiction.

Auburn Hills Homeowners Association v. New Page Properties, L.L.C. · filed 2022-10-12

The existence of a potential federal defense to a state law claim normally does not create federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction when a well-pleaded complaint alleges claims arising under the Constitution or federal law.

Von Derhaar v. Stalbert · filed 2022-11-14

Accordingly, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter through 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal question jurisdiction because the plaintiff’s well-pled complaint avers claims arising under the Constitution and federal law.

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

Project C, LLC v. Durham · filed 2022-11-15

The Complaint does not plead any claims arising under federal law. (See generally Dkt. 1, Exh. A.) Accordingly, the court lacks federal question jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction only when the plaintiff’s complaint shows that the claim is based on federal law.

(UD)(PS) JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. v. Nelson-Rogers · filed 2022-11-15

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

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; a state-law unlawful detainer claim does not supply one.

JC Pacific Investment, LLC v. Han · filed 2022-11-21

Because Plaintiff’s complaint contains only an unlawful detainer action based on California Civil Procedure Code section 1161 (Complaint at 20-25) a federal question does not present itself. ... Accordingly, removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is improper.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint raises only state-law claims.

Raymond C. Green Funding, LLC v. Ocean Development Precinct I, LLC · filed 2022-12-05

The Complaint and the Amended Complaint both contain only causes of action arising under state law. Thus, no federal question is raised in either.

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

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Price · filed 2022-12-06

Only a well-pleaded complaint can provide the basis for federal question jurisdiction, and Deutsche Bank’s complaint in the original executory process action raises no federal questions.

Section 1331 requires the plaintiff’s complaint to raise an issue of federal law; allegations of a breach of a promissory note and loan agreement do not suffice.

Raymond C. Green Funding, LLC v. Ocean Development Precinct I, LLC · filed 2022-12-08

Federal question jurisdiction does not exist in this case because the complaint’s allegations, which arise from the breach of a promissory note and loan agreement, do not raise an issue of federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when ERISA does not completely preempt them.

PMH Helathcare of Califonria, Inc. v. Cigna Healthcare of California, Inc. · filed 2022-12-12

Without ERISA preemption, the well-pleaded complaint rule necessitates that this case be remanded to state court.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction cannot rest on a defendant’s federal defenses or counterclaims.

Vernon County v. Mississippi Sports and Recreation, Incorporated · filed 2022-12-15

Thus, Mississippi Sports’ defenses and counterclaims are on their face insufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a federal defense cannot establish jurisdiction.

(UD)(PS) Kim v. Parker · filed 2022-12-21

To the extent Defendant argues Plaintiff discriminated against him because of his race, such an argument constitutes a defense, which cannot form the basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint presents only a state-law unlawful detainer claim.

JC Pacific Investment, LLC v. Han · filed 2022-12-29

Because Plaintiff’s complaint contains only an unlawful detainer claim arising under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1161, Dkt. 1 at 24-27, a federal question does not present itself.

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

Steffen v. Uplift, Inc. · filed 2023-01-19

Under the “well-pleaded complaint” rule, the federal question must appear on the face of the plaintiff's complaint, rather than in an anticipated defense. ... In Steffen’s statement of small claims he sought “damages under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act [(FDCPA)] Section 809(b) ....” Doc. 1-3 at 1. ... Thus, there is federal question jurisdiction over this claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a federal issue appears only in a defendant’s answer to a state-law complaint.

Bell Real Estate, Inc. v. Diaz · filed 2023-01-30

No federal question is presented in the complaint. Although Defendants raised the ADA and FHA in their answer, they may not insert a federal question in a defensive argument to establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the well-pleaded complaint; a removal notice that pleads no federal claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Szanto v. Rudat · filed 2023-02-10

In this case, Defendant’s Notice of Removal, which is also labeled as a “Complaint,” does not plead any claims arising under federal law. ... Accordingly, the court lacks federal question jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction only when the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint raises an issue of federal law.

Kansas, State of v. Crenshaw · filed 2023-02-28

Federal district courts have “federal question jurisdiction” over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “[A] cause of action arises under federal law only when the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint raises issues of federal law.” Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63 (1987). ... Defendant’s notice of removal does not appear to invoke either basis for original jurisdiction in this Court.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law foreclosure action based on a defendant’s federal counterclaims.

M&T BANK v. KYUNG WHA HAN AND SANG TAEK HAN · filed 2023-02-28

To the extent Sang Taek Han purports to base § 1331 jurisdiction on the Han Defendants’ federal counterclaims pursuant to, inter alia, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”), removal is plainly improper under the well-pleaded complaint rule as defenses and counterclaims do not create federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based on a federal defense or counterclaim to a state-law claim.

Felder v. Novikoff · filed 2023-03-02

A defense or counterclaim based on federal law does not give rise to federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the complaint; a proposed amended complaint asserting only state-law claims does not plead federal-question jurisdiction.

Ramos v. Subaru of America, Inc. · filed 2023-03-06

Because Plaintiff’s proposed first amended complaint removes the claim for relief under the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (see Doc. 7 at 2), and all remaining claims arise under California law, it fails to plead jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because the defendant raises a federal counterclaim.

Moses v. Cantu · filed 2023-03-15

And as this Court has already concluded, the Moses’ eviction action does not become removable to federal court merely because the Cantus have asserted an issue of federal law in their counterclaim.

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

Boitet v. Perry · filed 2023-03-16

The federal question must appear on the face of the complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the well-pleaded complaint; a complaint alleging only state-law claims does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A v. ARSENIS · filed 2023-03-20

To begin, despite Arsenis’s contentions, the Complaint solely alleges state law claims; thus, the Court may not exercise federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to arise from the plaintiff’s complaint; a federal defense does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Samaha v. Burnside · filed 2023-03-21

Any federal questions about the constitutionality of the procedures in the eviction proceeding can arise at most as defenses and not from the complaint itself. Therefore, this Court lacks federal question jurisdiction over this case.

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

NAAC 2022-6 LP v. Gritney · filed 2023-03-22

Accordingly, a defense or counterclaim based on federal law cannot give rise to federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction depends on the plaintiff’s complaint; a federal counterclaim cannot establish it.

Baffoni v. Lisi · filed 2023-03-22

Thus, aside from the glaring deficiencies in Defendant’s purported reliance on PFTA as the foundation for this Court’s federal question subject matter jurisdiction,5 the more fundamental problem with Defendant’s removal is that the touchstone of removability based on § 1331 subject matter jurisdiction is not Defendant’s counterclaim – it is Plaintiff’s complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; without one, the court lacks federal-question jurisdiction.

Apolinar v. Equifax Data Services LLC · filed 2023-03-29

As for federal question jurisdiction, no federal claim appears on the face of Plaintiff’s Complaint. Accordingly, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and this action is due to be remanded.

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

Alamitos Gardens, LP v. Saavedra · filed 2023-04-05

“The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” ... Because Plaintiff’s complaint contains only an unlawful detainer action based on California Civil Procedure Code section 1161 (Doc. 1 at 5–10) a federal question does not present itself. ... Accordingly, removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is improper.

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

Minor v. Regional Acceptance Corporation · filed 2023-04-12

No federal question was present on the face of either pleading so as to provide the necessary basis for proper removal.

Section 1331 requires the complaint itself to show a federal basis for the claim; invoking federal statutes later in a response does not establish jurisdiction.

Shaver v. Whittier Condominiums HOA · filed 2023-04-12

The Complaint does not show that Plaintiff’s case arises under any of these statutes; accordingly, Plaintiff’s invocation of these statutes in his Response is insufficient to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint raises no issue of federal law and the plaintiff disclaims any claim to rights protected by federal law.

Rennie v. Top View / Go New York Tours / South East Personnel · filed 2023-04-14

It would be perverse and counter to the presumption against removal for the Court to find that there exists a basis for federal jurisdiction when a plaintiff’s complaint does not raise an issue of federal law and the plaintiff specifically renounces any intent to assert rights equivalent to those protected by federal law, simply because the plaintiff is representing himself.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the complaint; a claim for state unemployment benefits without allegations invoking federal law does not establish jurisdiction.

Bryant v. Virginia Employment Commission · filed 2023-04-19

Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, the existence of a federal question must appear on the face of a plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. v. Drain, 237 F.3d 366, 270 (4th Cir. 2001). She does not plead the violation of any federal law.

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

Midfirst Bank v. Jeter-Sipple · filed 2023-04-19

This is insufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction. The Court confines its inquiry to whether Plaintiff’s “well-pleaded complaint” raises a federal question on its face.12 Plaintiff’s state court petition did not raise a federal question; rather, it merely sought foreclosure on Defendants’ residential mortgage.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a federal defense does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

(UD) (PS) Durkin v. Alexander · filed 2023-04-25

To the extent Defendant argues Plaintiff discriminated against him because of his race, such an argument constitutes a defense, which cannot form the basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s claim; a defendant’s constitutional defenses do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Manchanda v. Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department · filed 2023-04-26

Manchanda’s affirmative defenses that the Grievance Committee’s actions violate his federal constitutional rights are not part of the complaint and are therefore insufficient to demonstrate that this court has federal question jurisdiction of this action.

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

Fuentes v. Redwood Holdings LLC · filed 2023-05-01

For jurisdiction based on a federal question, the court looks to the face of a “well-pleaded complaint” to determine whether a cause of action is created by federal law or whether the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on the resolution of a substantial question of federal law.

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

Johnson v. EAN Holding L L C · filed 2023-05-05

Jurisdiction under Section 1331 is assessed based on the well-pleaded complaint rule.

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

U.S. Bank National Association v. William Kent William Kent Roberson · filed 2023-05-08

Any rights based in federal law that Defendant believes he has by way of a defense or a basis for a counterclaim does not give this Court original jurisdiction over Plaintiff's unlawful detainer case.

Section 1331 requires a federal claim to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; allegations that could be resolved under state law do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Cruz v. Ally Financial Inc. · filed 2023-05-08

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

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction cannot rest on a defendant’s answer or an actual or anticipated defense.

(UD)(PS) Roem Development Corporation v. Singleton · filed 2023-05-09

Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, an actual or anticipated defense does not support federal question jurisdiction, see Vaden, 556 U.S. at 60, so defendant’s answer does not give this court power to hear her case.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law foreclosure complaint that raises no federal question on its face.

Third Federal Savings and Loan Association of Cleveland v. Khamisi · filed 2023-05-10

The face of Plaintiff’s Complaint does not support federal-question jurisdiction, as a foreclosure action arises entirely under state law and is not a “civil action[] arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Federal-question jurisdiction requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; an answer that depends on federal law is insufficient.

Ghayur v. Khang · filed 2023-05-11

Moreover, the fact that an answer may depend on federal law is insufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges only state-law claims.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. v. ARSENIS · filed 2023-05-12

To begin, the Complaint solely alleges state law claims; thus, the Court may not exercise federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 generally requires a federal claim on the face of the complaint; a federal defense, including ordinary preemption, does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

KAPLOW v. PORT POLICE & GUARDS UNION LOCAL 1456 · filed 2023-05-12

Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, defenses grounded in federal law generally do not establish federal question jurisdiction, even if federal law preempts a state-law claim.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the complaint; a complaint asserting only a state-law claim does not satisfy it.

IME Watchdog, Inc. v. IME Companions, LLC · filed 2023-05-18

It therefore fails to allege a claim under “the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” as required under § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; a state law breach of contract claim does not establish federal question jurisdiction merely because federal law might apply.

ODK Capital, LLC v. Choudry · filed 2023-05-23

More fundamentally, defendant has not demonstrated that federal question jurisdiction is a proper basis for removal. Despite defendant’s claim that there is some “possible application of federal law,” the complaint reveals only one claim: a state law cause of action for breach of contract.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the properly pleaded complaint; a complaint asserting only a state law claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Hill-Price v. Mason · filed 2023-06-02

It is also clear that the face of Hill-Price’s complaint does not affirmatively allege a federal claim; he asserts only a state law claim. Thus, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Hill-Price’s claims and the complaint is subject to dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).

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

Home Transition Specialist, LLC v. Fegely · filed 2023-06-14

Ms. Fegely cannot bootstrap her FDCPA claims against Plaintiff to Plaintiff’s wholly-state-law- claims and thereby create federal jurisdiction and thus grounds for removal.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because federal law may supply a defense.

CAPITOL BROADCASTING COMPANY, INCORPORATED v. CITY OF SALISBURY, NORTH CAROLINA · filed 2023-06-29

Thus, under the well-pleaded complaint rule, the instant action arises under state law, the DPPA is only relevant insofar as it is a potential federal defense, and therefore this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the complaint; a complaint that establishes no federal claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Washington v. Dillard · filed 2023-06-30

The complaint, therefore, does not establish federal question jurisdiction.

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

White v. Vossekuil · filed 2023-07-05

Based on the factual allegations and Plaintiff’s lack of objection, the Court is satisfied that the original complaint brought federal claims, making Defendants’ removal of this case proper.

Section 1331 does not support federal-question jurisdiction over a removed case when the federal issue arises only as a defense rather than from the claims in the complaint.

MCCALL v. MONGTOMERY COUNTY OFFICE OF CHILD AND YOUTH · filed 2023-07-10

McCall’s constitutional claims may constitute a defense in the custody matter, but the law is clear that subject matter jurisdiction in removed actions cannot be based on defenses to a claim, only on the claims asserted in the complaint itself. As such, McCall has failed to establish federal question jurisdiction as a basis for removal of the state court Complaint, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff's complaint asserts only a California unlawful detainer claim.

Telegraph Carmenita, LLC v. Maria Isabela Jara Betancourt · filed 2023-07-14

Because this complaint only contains an unlawful detainer action based on California Civil Procedure Code section 1161(a) (Compl.), a federal question does not present itself.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear in the plaintiff’s own cause of action; a defendant’s federal claims raised in response to state-law claims do not create federal-question jurisdiction.

Stork v. Deppe · filed 2023-07-17

However, asserting those federal claims in response to the plaintiffs’ state law claims does not infuse the complaint with a federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts only a state-law unlawful-detainer claim.

(PS) Overholtzer v. Kelsey · filed 2023-07-28

Because the Complaint indicates that the only cause of action is one for unlawful detainer, which arises solely under state law, this action does not arise under federal law.

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

Plymouth Housing Group v. Leaming · filed 2023-07-31

Under the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” federal question jurisdiction supporting removal exists only when the federal question is present on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint. ... Because Plymouth’s well-pleaded complaint does not present a federal question, the court concludes that removal of this action is improper and GRANTS Plymouth’s motion to remand.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when vague allegations of violated rights fail to raise an issue arising under federal law.

Richey v. Spielman · filed 2023-07-31

In any case, Richey’s claims are too vague and conclusory to raise a question arising under federal law.

Section 1331 requires a federal claim to appear in the complaint to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Davis v. WVU Medicine/Camden Clark Medical Center · filed 2023-08-14

Plaintiff did not plead a Fourth Amendment claim in his complaint, nor has he sought leave to amend. He therefore has not properly plead a Fourth Amendment claim sufficient to trigger this Court’s original jurisdiction.

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

Antar v. Lodice · filed 2023-08-22

None of Antar’s complaints satisfy federal-question jurisdiction. First, the two state superior court complaints Antar has attached to her response to the Court’s July 26 order allege solely state law claims for child support, custody, and visitation.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear in the plaintiff’s complaint; a defense or counterclaim invoking federal law does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Antar v. Lodice · filed 2023-08-22

Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, the focus is on what claims the plaintiff alleges in the complaint, and the fact that a defendant may raise federal law defenses or counterclaims does not allow the defendant to remove the case to a federal court.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a state-law unlawful detainer claim does not satisfy that requirement.

Centre 11 LLC v. Goldstein · filed 2023-08-29

As this Court pointed out in the Order to Show Cause, the complaint raises a single claim of unlawful detainer under California state law and therefore does not present a federal question on its face. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that it lacks federal subject matter jurisdiction over this unlawful detainer action, and that the action must be remanded to the superior court.

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the plaintiff’s complaint; a defendant’s asserted constitutional objection does not supply federal-question jurisdiction.

Cabrera v. Lagerstrom · filed 2023-09-11

Furthermore, Defendants’ unsupported assertion in their motion to dismiss that allowing Plaintiff’s complaint to proceed “would impact [their] Constitutional Rights” (ECF 1, at 22) is insufficient to provide the Court with federal question jurisdiction of this action.

Mere references to federal law in a complaint asserting state-law claims do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

COHEN v. SANKS · filed 2023-09-14

Here, the Court finds that because the Complaint merely references federal law, remand is appropriate.

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

Wisconsin Department of Health Service v. Payne · filed 2023-09-19

The face of the plaintiff’s complaint does not raise a federal question. ... A defense “does not appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint, and, therefore, does not authorize removal to federal court.” ... The court does not have federal question jurisdiction.

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

Recinos v. Buttes Homeowners Association · filed 2023-09-20

However, notwithstanding that Section 4.12.080 addresses the proper venue in state court proceedings—and the fact the referred-to actions were removed on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which does not exist in this case—Ms. Recinos’ response does not reveal a federal question on the face of her properly pleaded complaint.

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

Keading v. Keading · filed 2023-09-22

Federal question jurisdiction is not established by a defendant’s anticipated federal defense to a state law cause of action.

Section 1331 gives federal courts original jurisdiction when a well-pleaded complaint contains an explicit federal cause of action.

Lanciani v. Allstate Insurance Company · filed 2023-09-22

The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ “well-pleaded” state court complaint, as it existed at the time of removal, contains an explicit federal cause of action, and thus the Court has original federal question jurisdiction over the claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires the complaint’s well-pleaded allegations to raise a federal question; allegations that do not support the asserted federal claims fail to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Saphilom v. Vichittavong · filed 2023-09-27

Generally, subject matter jurisdiction is present where the well pleaded allegations in the complaint raise a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or the parties meet the diversity and amount in controversy requirements under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. ... On its face, the Amended Complaint lacks allegations that create federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a plaintiff's complaint raises only state-law claims and the defendant first raises federal law in an answer.

Mcknight v. Experian · filed 2023-09-27

Because Plaintiff chose not to raise the Fair Credit Reporting Act in his Complaint, Defendant’s reference to it in the Answer is insufficient to create a basis of federal jurisdiction in this Court.

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

HSBC BANK USA NATIONAL ASSOCIATION v. JALON · filed 2023-09-29

However, the well-pleaded complaint rule bars federal jurisdiction on the basis of an actual or anticipated federal defense or counterclaim to a state law claim.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal question jurisdiction when the plaintiff’s complaint shows that the claim is based on federal law.

(UD) (PS) Realty Advisors, Incorporated v. Ojiaku · filed 2023-10-02

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

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

Abuzaid v. Almayouf · filed 2023-10-02

Plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint does not present any federal question on its face. ... Because a federal defense does not provide a basis for removal, removal of this state court action based on federal question jurisdiction is improper.

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

Bridge WF II CA Parkway Club, LLC v. Cabrera · filed 2023-10-04

Plaintiff’s Complaint does not raise a federal issue; rather, Defendant argues Plaintiff should have raised the PTFA in its pleading. ... The PTFA, nor any other federal statute, is part of Plaintiff’s Complaint. As such, this Court lacks federal question jurisdiction under the well-pleaded complaint rule.

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

Reaves v. Airnb-California · filed 2023-10-10

Federal question jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is present on the face of a properly pleaded complaint.

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

Hankins v. PennyMac Loan Services, LLC · filed 2023-10-13

The well-pleaded complaint rule provides that jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of a plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint. ... Thus, the Court concludes that it lacks federal question jurisdiction over this matter.

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; a defendant’s federal law defenses or counterclaims do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Koch · filed 2023-10-16

Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, the focus is on what claims the plaintiff alleges in the complaint, and the fact that a defendant may raise federal law defenses or counterclaims does not allow the defendant to remove the case to a federal court.

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the plaintiff’s properly pleaded claim; a defendant’s federal counterclaim or defense does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Newco Family, LLC v. Haider · filed 2023-10-18

Haider’s attempt to raise counterclaims or defenses under the FHA and other federal laws cannot serve as the basis for removing the state court rent dispute to federal court. Removal of a case to federal court may not be predicated on a counterclaim or affirmative defense as it is not part of a plaintiff’s properly pleaded statement of his claim.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of a properly pleaded complaint; state law claims that are not completely preempted by federal law do not supply one.

Russian School of Mathematics, Inc. v. Sinyavin · filed 2023-10-19

“The presence or absence of federal question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). ... Each of the claims for relief alleged in the Complaint contains the extra element that removes them from the Copyright Act’s preemptive scope. ... Having found that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action, the Court declines to rule on and need not address the parties’ other pending requests, such as Plaintiff’s motion to hold Defendants in contempt (Doc. 7) and Defendants’ pre-motion letter seeking a preliminary injunction (Doc. 30).

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a federal question appears on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; state-law claims alone do not establish it.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Smith · filed 2023-10-23

District courts have original jurisdiction over cases where a “federal question” is present, which occurs if a plaintiff’s original cause of action arises under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, “an action ‘aris[es] under’ federal law ‘only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.’” Hansen v. Grp. Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2018) (citations omitted). Wells Fargo’s complaint brings only state law claims for declaratory relief, cancellation of instrument, quiet title, and slander of title. (Dkt. No. 1 at 8.) So, federal question removal jurisdiction does not exist.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction cannot rest on a counterclaim or defense.

MOUNT LAUREL TOWNSHIP v. CHARERNSOOK · filed 2023-10-24

But, as the Court described above, the presence of a counterclaim or defense is inadequate to confer federal question jurisdiction.

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

Dupin v. Thomas · filed 2023-10-27

In the present case, Plaintiff has not met his burden of establishing federal-question Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The “well-pleaded complaint” rule requires that “a federal question be presented on the face of the complaint.”

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the plaintiff’s complaint; federal claims raised only in the defendant’s counterclaims do not establish jurisdiction.

MALZARC LLC v. LAMBERT · filed 2023-10-31

However, because these federal laws, and thus any federal question, are cited only in Defendant’s counterclaims, and not in the original Complaint, this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear this case, and removal is improper.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction when a well-pleaded complaint asserts claims arising under the Constitution or federal law.

Griffay v. State of New Mexico · filed 2023-11-02

This Court has original jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims if they arise under the Constitution or federal laws. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, the Court reads Plaintiff’s complaint and subsequent filings to assert federal constitutional claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint pleads only state-law claims and its references to possible federal claims are too ambiguous to allege one.

Kovarcik v. Bayou Academy · filed 2023-11-08

The same reasoning applies here. Kovarcik’s Complaint [2] alleges that Bayou Academy breached a contract. ... She does not allege that sexism or ageism caused the breach, nor does she cite federal law in any manner. ... Therefore, the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction to preside over this matter.

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

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. v. TAYLOR · filed 2023-11-08

Taylor’s claims regarding the underlying gold contract are in the nature of defenses, and therefore, irrelevant for purposes of determining subject matter jurisdiction under § 1331.