28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 does not support jurisdiction when the only federal statute invoked gives the plaintiff no private remedy.

People's Housing Development Corp. v. City of Poughkeepsie · filed 1976-11-05

The court concludes that § 5309(a), the only federal statute upon which PHDC relies for jurisdiction, does not endow PHDC with a private remedy. Accordingly the motion for injunctive relief is denied and the complaint is dismissed.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state negligence claim that uses a federal regulatory violation only as an element when Congress provided no private federal cause of action.

Clark v. Velsicol Chemical Corp. · filed 1991-09-10

Plaintiffs concede they have no federal cause of action and argue that under North Carolina law a violation of any statute enacted for the safety and protection of the public constitutes negligence per se. ... Application of the particular federal statute in this case would remain but an element in plaintiffs' state negligence action and cannot give rise to federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal question jurisdiction but does not create an independent private right of action.

Mahogany v. Louisiana State Supreme Court · filed 2008-01-25

Mahogany also invokes jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 2201, but those stat- utes providing for federal question jurisdiction and permitting declaratory relief do not create an independent private right of action.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over claims under federal statutes that create no private right of action.

Mason and Dixon Lines, Inc. v. STEUDLE · filed 2011-01-13

The claims brought under other federal statutes and regulations may not proceed because those statutes and regulations do not create private rights of action, and to that extent, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over them.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction to decide whether a federal statute creates a private right of action, even if the claim ultimately fails on the merits.

Parra v. Pacificare of Arizona, Inc. · filed 2013-04-19

Subject matter jurisdiction exists to determine whether a federal statute provides a private right of action.

Section 1331 is jurisdictional and can confer a private right of action only in the limited Bivens context of constitutional damages claims against federal actors.

Fontanez v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania · filed 2014-06-20

This distinction is unavailing because § 1331 is a jurisdictional statute. It can be read to confer a private right of action only in the limited Bivens context, where a litigant sues federal actors for damages on constitutional grounds.

When no state-law claim implicating significant federal issues is asserted, the absence of a private federal right of action defeats federal-question jurisdiction.

Stew Farm, Ltd. v. Natural Resources Conservation Service · filed 2014-08-25

STEW Farm does not argue that it is bringing a state-law claim that implicates significant federal issues. Consequently, we must determine only whether federal law creates a private right of action that STEW Farm can pursue. ... Because the absence of a private right of action means the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, see Care Choices HMO v. Engstrom, 330 F.3d 786, 791 (6th Cir. 2003), the district court’s dismissal of the state law claims is without prejudice.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff fails to plead a claim arising under federal law, despite citing provisions that provide no cause of action.

Theus v. Ally Financial, Inc. · filed 2015-04-15

In addition, the Court lacks jurisdiction over this case because plaintiff has failed to plead any claim that arises under federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In the complaint, plaintiff refers to federal statutes related to counterfeiting, but these criminal provisions do not include a private right of action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a private claim under a federal statute that creates no private right of action.

Clark v. Student Loan Finance Corporation · filed 2019-09-16

As neither statute provides a private right of action and Plaintiff has not demonstrated that Congress intended to make a private remedy available, see Suter v. Artist M., 503 U.S. 347, 363 (1992) (holding that the party who seeks to imply a private right of action bears the burden to show that Congress intended to make one available), the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and must dismiss Plaintiff’s causes of action under the ICCPR and Section 1028 against both Defendants.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based on a regulation unless its authorizing statute creates a private right of action.

Sofia v. Esposito · filed 2019-12-04

In order to maintain an action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, a plaintiff must be able to point to a statute that creates a private right of action.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction based on HIPAA because HIPAA creates no private right of action.

Moore v. Garner · filed 2019-12-23

Moreover, Plaintiff’s invocation of HIPAA does not serve as a basis of jurisdiction as there is no private right of action under HIPAA.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a claim asking whether a federal statute implies a private right of action, even if the statute provides none.

Rizvi v. Urstadt Biddle Properties Inc. · filed 2020-01-30

In fact, no dismissal on that ground was warranted here. See Rodriguez ex rel. Rodriguez v. DeBuono, 175 F.3d 227, 233 (2d Cir. 1999) (holding that whether private right of action can be implied from federal statute is itself sufficient federal question to meet modest requirements for subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331).

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the only asserted federal claims arise under criminal statutes that create no private right of action.

Farmer v. Karpf, Karpf & Cerrutti P.C. · filed 2020-04-20

Plaintiff does allege that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, also known as “federal question” jurisdiction. However, the only federal claims that Plaintiff alleges are based on criminal statutes. ... Here, even affording Plaintiff all the solicitude he is owed as a pro se litigant, the Court cannot find that he has met his burden of showing that Congress intended for either the mail fraud or wire fraud statutes to be privately enforceable. ... Therefore, there is no basis for federal question jurisdiction either.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over claimed violations of federal statutes or regulations that provide no private right of action for the asserted claim.

McQueary v. State of Florida Child Support Enforcement · filed 2020-05-04

Her allegations that the defendants violated the Child Support Recovery Act of 1992, the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1998, 18 U.S.C. § 228, 28 U.S.C. § 1738B, and Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations did not confer the district court with federal-question jurisdiction because none of these statutes or regulations provide for a private right of action against the state of Florida or its child support enforcement agencies for failure to enforce a child support order or prosecute an individual for failing to pay a child support order.

Section 1331 gives a district court subject matter jurisdiction over a claim arising under federal law even when the asserted federal statute provides no private right of action.

Bauer v. Elrich · filed 2020-06-25

Remand is not appropriate here because the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and has definitively decided the case. See Lexmark, 572 U.S. at 128 n.4 (2014) (“the absence of a valid (as opposed to arguable) cause of action does not implicate subject-matter jurisdiction, i.e., the court’s statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case”); Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998).

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over a claim under a federal statute that lacks a private right of action.

Evans v. Hood · filed 2020-07-02

But the claim contains a more fundamental flaw that Defendants do not address: the SAFE Act does not contain a private right of action. ... The Court therefore lacks federal-question jurisdiction over Count II.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction for a claim relying solely on HIPAA, which creates no private cause of action.

Sky v. Seattle Specialty Dentistry · filed 2020-11-17

Where there is no federal private right of action, however, “federal courts may not entertain a claim that depends on the presence of federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.” Webb v. Smart Document Sols., LLC, 499 F.3d 1078, 1083 (9th Cir. 2007). It is well settled law that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) does not create a private cause of action. Id. at 1082. Given that plaintiff’s only asserted basis for subject-matter jurisdiction is “a federal question pursuant to HIPAA,” Dkt. # 1 at 2, it appears that there is no valid basis for federal jurisdiction over this matter.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a HIPAA claim because HIPAA creates no private cause of action.

Attia v. Martin · filed 2021-06-30

As Judge Gargiulo correctly determined, Attia has not provided any valid basis for federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“[D]istrict courts . . . have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”). The only specific bases for federal question jurisdiction cited by Attia are HIPAA and alleged terrorism. HIPAA does not convey federal jurisdiction because it does not create a private cause of action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based on the CARES Act because that Act creates no private right of action.

Henderson v. Carranza · filed 2021-07-22

However, the CARES Act does not create a private right of action and therefore cannot be the basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a HIPAA claim when HIPAA creates no private right of action.

WARREN v. PETERY · filed 2021-08-02

In the absence of a private right of action under HIPAA, this court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint does not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction4 under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an identity-theft claim under a federal criminal statute that gives individuals no private right of action.

Melendez v. Woloshky · filed 2021-09-03

Although identity theft is prohibited by federal criminal law, see 18 U.S.C. § 1028, there is no private right of action allowing an individual to sue for identity theft under that statute. ... There is therefore no subject matter jurisdiction over such a claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction for a claim under a federal statute that lacks a private right of action.

Cross v. Fox · filed 2022-01-14

If the plaintiff brings a claim under a federal statute that does not authorize a private right of action, the statute will not support jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 confers jurisdiction over a private claim under a federal statute only if that statute provides a private right of action.

Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment · filed 2022-02-17

Each of these statutes only confer jurisdiction on the Court if the Voting Rights Act provides a private right of action to enforce § 2. Because the Court has concluded above that the Voting Rights Act does not provide such a private right of action, these jurisdictional statutes do not confer jurisdiction on the Court.

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

Davies-Garcia v. County of Kings State Superior Family Law · filed 2022-03-28

Section 1331, however, is purely jurisdictional statute that does not, on its own, create a private right of action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction for a private claim under the Federal Trade Commission Act, which only the FTC may enforce.

BRYANT v. ALLIANCE PROPERTY SOLUTIONS · filed 2022-04-29

The Complaint does not present a federal question for purposes of establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiffs’ claim under the FTCA fails.

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

Walker v. Child Protective Services · filed 2022-05-24

Section 1331, however, is purely jurisdictional statute that does not, on its own, create a private right of action.

A private claim under the FTC Act does not establish federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 because the Act provides no private right of action.

Ricks v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company · filed 2022-05-31

Plaintiff cannot bring a private claim under the FTC Act. Plaintiff has not established federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction but does not itself create a private right of action.

White v. Renzi · filed 2022-08-24

In either case, though, the plaintiff must also identify a substantive law that actually creates a private right of action—merely invoking § 1331 and/or § 1332 is not enough to maintain a civil action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim under § 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act because that provision has no private right of action.

Doud v. Everyday Auto LLC · filed 2022-10-17

However, the Ninth Circuit has held that § 5 of the FTCA does not provide a private right of action. ... Since neither diversity nor federal question jurisdiction exist, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction and must dismiss Plaintiffs claim.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a private plaintiff bases a claim on statutes that do not authorize a private right of action.

BERUTTI v. WOLFSON · filed 2023-01-27

A federal court does not have federal question jurisdiction over a case where a private plaintiff’s basis for his claims are statutes that do not authorize private rights of action.

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

Mendoza v. Doubleroad Truck & Bus Tyres · filed 2023-02-10

Section 1331 is a purely jurisdictional statute that does not, on its own, create a private right of action.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a private claim based only on criminal statutes that provide no private right of action.

Delap v. Mackey · filed 2023-02-13

As a result, this Court lacks federal question jurisdiction because Plaintiffs reference only Title 18 of the United States Code as the basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint’s only federal claim invokes a criminal statute that provides no private right of action.

Walsh v. California Energy Development Inc. · filed 2023-02-15

Plaintiff pleaded federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. See id. The only federal claim brought by Plaintiff, however, was criminal statute 18 U.S.C.A. § 1344, which does not provide for a private right of action by a civil plaintiff. ... Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction to enforce federal criminal statutes when the plaintiff has no private right of action.

Shidagis v. Broome County D.S.S. · filed 2023-02-21

There is no federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because, as Magistrate Judge Lovric determined, Plaintiff does not have a private right of action to enforce federal criminal statutes.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a civil claim based on federal criminal statutes that provide no private cause of action.

Johnson v. Bank of America Corporation · filed 2023-03-31

As correctly noted in the Report, Plaintiff’s citation of federal criminal statutes does not invoke this court’s federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as there is no private cause of action under these statutes.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction for claims based on criminal statutes that give private citizens no civil claim.

Boyle v. Boyle · filed 2023-04-10

There is also no federal question jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. First, while Plaintiff brings several claims based on criminal statutes ... such claims are not cognizable as those statutes cannot be the basis of a civil claim by a private citizen. ... The Court thus finds that Plaintiff has failed to establish federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction for claims based on federal criminal statutes that provide no private cause of action.

Rouse v. Holt (TV2) · filed 2023-05-02

However, as defendant has pointed out, these federal criminal statutes do not give rise to a private cause of action. ... Thus, federal question jurisdiction cannot exist based on these two statutes.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over claims invoking federal statutes even when those statutes provide no private right of action; the absence of that right is grounds for dismissal for failure to state a claim.

Klaneski v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company · filed 2023-06-30

Thus, Ms. Klaneski has not asserted a cognizable federal cause of action in her Complaint. Nonetheless, this conclusion does not compel the dismissal of her claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, the Court will exercise subject matter jurisdiction over Ms. Klaneski’s claims under the FTCA and the federal mail and wire fraud statutes and dismiss these counts under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the federal statutes underlying the claims provide no private right of action.

Kampfer v. Fadale · filed 2023-07-28

Since Plaintiff cannot bring any claims under these statutes, he has not implicated federal-question jurisdiction in his Complaint.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a HIPAA claim because HIPAA provides no private right of action.

Byler v. Woods · filed 2023-08-04

To the extent that Plaintiff is bringing a claim under HIPAA, the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain it because HIPAA does not provide a private right of action to enforce any violations of the statute.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction for claims under criminal statutes that lack a private right of action.

Coleman v. Baumgartner · filed 2023-09-20

These criminal statutes, however, do not provide a private right of action and thus cannot serve as the basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims based on criminal statutes that create no private right of action.

Houle v. Wells Fargo, NA · filed 2023-11-13

The statutes Plaintiff identifies as a basis for jurisdiction, however, cannot provide a basis for relief because they do not create a private right of action. ... Accordingly, the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not require a private right of action for federal-question jurisdiction.

Ottawa Northern Railroad, LLC v. Baldwin City, Kansas, City of · filed 2023-11-16

As an initial matter, the Court agrees that a private right of action is not required for the Court to exercise federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a HIPAA claim because HIPAA provides no private right of action.

Washington v. Shukler · filed 2023-12-05

Her allegation that Defendants violated HIPAA does not provide a basis for this Court to exercise federal question jurisdiction because HIPAA does not provide a private right of action.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over claims under federal criminal statutes that create no private cause of action.

Dillon v. Jobert · filed 2024-02-27

Because 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 and 1010 do not create private causes of action, Plaintiff’s Complaint does not arise under the laws of the United States.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim invoking a federal statute that gives the plaintiff no private right of action.

Parker v. Duncan · filed 2024-04-30

The defendant’s argument comports with the law. “Courts have routinely held that Sections 16 and 29 of the Federal Reserve Act do not confer a private right of action.” ... Under these circumstances, the Court concludes that the plaintiff has not adequately established that this Court may exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim based on a federal statute that creates no private right of action.

Bailey v. Oregon Supreme Court · filed 2024-07-16

Here, Plaintiff brings his claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1341. Though this is a federal statute, it does not confer jurisdiction here because it “does not provide a private right of action.”

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims based on federal criminal statutes that create no private right of action.

White v. Dietrich · filed 2024-08-26

Here, Plaintiff brings claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3, 1001, and 1621. Though these are federal statutes, they do not confer jurisdiction here because they do not provide a private right of action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an Indian Civil Rights Act claim seeking declaratory or injunctive relief when the Act provides no private right of action for that relief.

LaBatte v. Gangle · filed 2024-08-30

Here, LaBatte is not seeking a writ of habeas corpus under the ICRA and is seeking only injunctive and declaratory relief. Thus, this Court concludes that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs case and grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Doc. 26, accordingly.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over claims based on federal statutes that provide no private cause of action.

Edwards v. AxoGen, Inc. · filed 2024-09-23

Mr. Edwards’ action, therefore, does not arise under any of the laws of the United States he has referenced. This Court consequently lacks subject matter jurisdiction, both federal question and diversity, over this lawsuit as it is pled.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims based on statutes that create no private right of action.

Tijerino v. GATR Truck Center · filed 2024-10-23

As noted in the Court’s August 6, 2024 Order (Rec. Doc. 13), Tijerino’s argument that federal question jurisdiction exists pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 (false statements) and 1341 (frauds and swindles) fails because neither statute permits a private right of action.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction but does not create an independent private right of action.

Walker v. Wormuth · filed 2024-11-07

Section 1331 does “not create an independent private right of action.”

Section 1331 does not confer a private right of action.

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

Plaintiff’s Complaint also states that this action is brought under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, and 1343, and 10 U.S.C. § 921, ECF 1 at 4, but these statutes do not confer a private right of action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction for a claim under a federal criminal statute that creates no private cause of action.

Yorkie Auto LLC v. Zanoy Industrial Group Inc. · filed 2025-03-04

Plaintiffs assertion of a federal wire fraud claim also cannot invoke this Court’s federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim under a federal statute that creates no private right of action.

Mccullough v. Maximus Education, LLC · filed 2025-03-11

Thus, because there is no private right of action under the Higher Education Act, there is no basis for the Court to exercise federal question jurisdiction over this matter.

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

CRANDALL v. NORTHERN LIGHTS EASTERN MAINE MEDICAL · filed 2025-04-29

Because neither federal claim pleaded on the face of Mr. Crandall’s complaint provides a private cause of action, the Court concludes it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the federal-law claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction for a claim under a statute that authorizes no private right of action.

Reed v. CoxHealth · filed 2025-06-02

If the plaintiff brings a claim under a federal statute that does not authorize a private right of action, the statute will not support jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction over claims based on federal criminal statutes that give the plaintiff no private right of action.

Soto-Elliott v. Shipley · filed 2025-09-03

However, these statutes cannot serve as a basis for this Court’s federal jurisdiction as they do not provide Plaintiff a private right of action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a private claim under a federal statute that creates no express or implied private right of action.

Boudjelta · filed 2025-10-20

A federal statute that does not create or imply a private right of action does not present a federal question pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 on behalf of private individuals. ... Because the INA does not provide a private cause of action, and only “contemplates judicial review at the conclusion of administrative proceedings,” the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction while the Department of Labor proceedings are ongoing.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the federal statutes identified in the complaint create no private right of action.

Baker · filed 2025-12-18

Federal question jurisdiction exists over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Baker alleged that this court’s jurisdiction over her case was based on two federal statutes. Neither creates a private right of action. So Baker has failed to carry her burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction, and her case is due to be dismissed.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction based on an asserted federal claim when the federal law creates no private right of action.

Southaven RV Center, Inc. v. NexTek · filed 2026-01-14

Although Wells Fargo argues that Southaven RV is attempting to “jettison” its federal claim brought under the BSA, as Killion and Martinez make clear, where no private right of action exists under federal law for the claim asserted, this Court cannot exercise federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction for claims invoking the Securities Investor Protection Act or SEC Rule 15c3-3 when those provisions supply no private right of action.

Shipman · filed 2026-02-13

But importantly, this statute (known as the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970), SEC Rule 15c3-3 (17 C.F.R. § 240.15c3-3), and the section of the statute under which the SEC Rule was promulgated (15 U.S.C. § 78o) do not supply Shipman with a private right of action. ... Thus, the Court lacks federal-question jurisdiction over Shipman’s claims.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when a well-pleaded complaint presents a claim arising under federal law, even if that law does not provide a private right of action.

Agag · filed 2026-04-15

Under Section 1331, what matters is that the claim arises under federal law on the face of the well-pleaded complaint, see generally Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149 (1908), not whether the NSA expressly entitles relief to an aggrieved party.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim based on an executive order that creates no private right of action.

Gaddy · filed 2026-06-09

This Executive Order, however, is not a statute that provides a private right of action. See id. Instead, it orders various executive agencies to take specific actions like restricting the federal government from selling single-family homes to “large institutional investor[s].” See id. Therefore, this Executive Order does not provide Plaintiffs with jurisdiction.

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

Singh v. Jaddou · filed 2023-04-17

The complaint also indicates is it brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (Compl. ¶ 1), but that is a “pure jurisdictional ... statute that does not, on its own, create a private right of action.”

A federal statutory right accompanied by a cause of action is enforceable in federal court under Section 1331 absent a clear congressional direction limiting enforcement to state court.

Halderman v. Pennhurst State School & Hospital · filed 1979-12-13

We would find it quite anomalous in the absence of a clear congressional expression to hold that a federal statute created a cause of action arising under federal law, but enforceable only in the state courts and not under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1976).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a patient-dumping claim against an individual physician when the federal Anti-Dumping Act gives the patient no private cause of action against that physician.

Patterson v. Hamrick · filed 1995-04-24

The specific issue is whether plaintiffs’ claim against their son’s emergency room physician, Dr. Hamrick, for “patient dumping” presents a viable cause of action under federal law so as to confer jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Though neither party directly addressed the question, this issue is clearly dispositive, for if there is no private cause of action under federal law there is no federal jurisdiction. ... Because the applicability of the Anti-Dumping Act provided defendants’ sole basis for removal, the case was improperly removed. Defendants have failed to carry their burden of proving the propriety of this Court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives a federal court jurisdiction to determine whether ERISA implies a cause of action for return of mistakenly paid contributions.

Trustees of the Operating Engineers Pension Trust v. Tab Contractors, Inc. · filed 2002-09-27

... this Court still has jurisdiction over Tab’s indemnification claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This Court has jurisdiction “for the purpose of determining whether an implied cause of action exist[s] under section 403(c)(2)(A) [of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1103(c)(2)(A) ] for return of mistakenly paid contributions.”

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a claim under the Torture Victim Protection Act because that Act creates a federal cause of action.

Arce v. Garcia · filed 2005-02-28

One potential basis for jurisdiction is federal-question jurisdiction under section 1331: “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (2000). Here, federal-question jurisdiction applies because the plaintiffs’ first claim for relief is brought under the TVPA, which provides a federal cause of action against “[a]n individual who, under actual or apparent authority, or color of law, of any foreign nation” subjects another to torture or extrajudicial killing. 28 U.S.C. § 1350 note (2000).

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a claim created by federal law, including a RICO claim.

Walsh Chiropractic, Ltd. v. StrataCare, Inc. · filed 2010-09-30

In light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that it has jurisdiction in this case pursuant to both 28 U.S.C. § 1331, by virtue of Walsh’s RICO claim, and 28 U.S.C. § 1332, as amended by the CAFA.

Section 1331 does not itself provide a cause of action for an alleged violation of customary international law as federal common law.

Mohamad v. Rajoub · filed 2011-03-18

Accordingly, following the Supreme Court’s guidance in Sosa, we hold the Rahims do not have a cause of action cognizable under § 1331 for an alleged violation of federal common law.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over a sponsored alien’s suit to enforce an Affidavit of Support because federal law creates the cause of action.

Madrid v. Robinson · filed 2016-10-31

Section 1183a(e)(l) creates a specific federal cause of action through which a sponsored alien may enforce their rights under an Affidavit of Support. Accordingly, this court has subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction will be denied.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction when the complaint asserts a federal cause of action, even if an element of that claim remains disputed.

French v. Applied Psychology Group of Texoma, PA · filed 2017-03-24

The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction, not because the .Court, makes a determination of whether Defendant is an “employer” under the ADEA, but because Plaintiffs Original Complaint asserts a federal question cause of action.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law, including claims under the ECOA and FCRA.

Campbell v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. · filed 2017-12-01

Because Plaintiff’s claims relating to violations of the ECOA and the FCRA are inherently federal, then, the Court FINDS that it has original jurisdiction over these claims on the basis of federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over complaints asserting causes of action created by federal law.

Dorval v. Sapphire Village Condominium Owners Association · filed 2019-03-30

This Court has jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... In this case, Dorval states causes of action under six federal statutes. ... The facts alleged by Dorval in the complaint, taken as true, support subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal subject matter jurisdiction when federal law creates the cause of action.

VAMOS, Concertacion Ciudadana Inc. v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico · filed 2020-09-24

As federal law creates the cause of action, there is federal subject matter jurisdiction for these claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. National Collegiate Master Student Loan Trust · filed 2021-03-26

Where federal law creates the cause of action, as the CFPA does here, the cause of action arises under federal law.

Section 1331 gives federal courts original subject matter jurisdiction over claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Raphiel v. Haley Residential Inc · filed 2023-02-07

Further, in his Complaint, Raphiel cites to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 (“FDCPA”), as the basis for his suit. See Record Document 28-1. This is a federal cause of action over which federal courts have original subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges a cause of action created by federal law or requires resolution of a substantial question of federal law.

Hill v. Campus Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · filed 2023-03-07

However, the Complaint does not allege any cause of action created by federal law or requiring resolution of a substantial question of federal law. Therefore, the Court does not have federal question subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives a district court federal-question jurisdiction when a plaintiff pleads a federal cause of action invoking the Constitution.

Garofalo v. City of New York · filed 2023-06-02

By “pleading a federal cause of action,” and invoking the U.S. Constitution, Plaintiff has established federal question jurisdiction in an obvious way.

Section 1331's federal-question jurisdiction is satisfied when the complaint asserts federal causes of action.

BOUNDS v. 531 STETSON LLC · filed 2024-04-24

Here, Plaintiffs raise federal causes of action in their Complaint and Amended Complaint, to plead for relief “arising under” federal law and thus meet the subject matter jurisdiction requirement under Section 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts subject matter jurisdiction over claims invoking a federal cause of action.

Rodriguez v. Pride Dealer Services Incorporated · filed 2024-05-06

Because Plaintiff’s Complaint invokes a federal cause of action under the FLSA, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Counts One and Two. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction when a plaintiff asserts an EMTALA claim, even before amending the complaint to include it.

Blankenship v. Pikeville Medical Center, Inc. · filed 2024-05-23

Federal courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 in “only those cases in which a well- pleaded Complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiffs right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” ... Plaintiff has stated that she is now asserting an EMTALA claim even though she has not yet amended her Complaint. (DE 5-1 at 10.) Accordingly, since an EMTALA claim is now being asserted, federal jurisdiction exists.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction when the complaint pleads a federal cause of action.

BARBER v. THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY · filed 2024-10-24

Here, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Plaintiff pleads a federal cause of action.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint pleads a cause of action created by federal law.

Grogan v. Archwell Holdings LLC · filed 2024-10-25

With that new cause of action, the face of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint appears to satisfy the requirements of federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Parker v. Brine's Refrigeration · filed 2025-05-21

Because those statutes contain private rights of action, this suit arises under federal law.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges a cause of action created by federal law.

Flynn · filed 2025-11-04

Because the FDCPA creates a federal cause of action and because Plaintiff alleges a violation under that Act, there are more than sufficient grounds for finding federal-question jurisdiction to be present in this case, regardless of Count II and Plaintiff’s unconvincing assertion that Counts II and III were meant only to serve as “background context” to her alleged solely stated law claims.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction when a federal statute creates the plaintiff’s cause of action.

Izquierdo · filed 2025-11-19

A civil action arises under national law when a federal statute or regulation creates the cause of action asserted by the plaintiff. See Am. Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co., 241 U.S. 257, 260 (1916). Plaintiff’s claims arise under the FCA, ADA, and FLSA. All are federal statutes. See ECF No. 1. Therefore, the Court exercises subject matter jurisdiction over this dispute under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims created by federal law.

RUZBACKI · filed 2026-02-11

Congress’s conferral of federal-question jurisdiction enables the Court and its counterparts to hear cases “arising under” the Constitution and laws of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. When federal law creates the cause of action asserted, a suit falls within that statutory grant. Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22, 26 (2025). Ruzbacki brings his claims at Counts I and II under federal law. (ECF No. 33, {] 19-26). While Newhaven, IntegraCare, and Pry argue otherwise, the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate those claims.

Section 1331 can supply jurisdiction over a federal welfare-law claim even when Section 1343 does not.

Winter v. Quern · filed 1980-04-09

Despite plaintiffs allegations to the contrary, subject matter jurisdiction over the claims set forth in the complaint cannot be acquired pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343, ... This Court, however, does possess jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction when the asserted federal statutes supply neither the necessary elements nor a private right of action.

Weinfeld v. Buccaneer Broadcasting, Ltd. · filed 1980-05-19

In addition no private right of action exists under the Communications Act of 1934. Thus there is no jurisdiction in the Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

For Section 1331 purposes, deciding whether a claim arises under a federal statute requires the same inquiry as deciding whether the statute creates a private federal cause of action.

Zeffiro v. First Pennsylvania Banking & Trust Co. · filed 1980-05-29

The relevant factors in the “arising under” inquiry are identical to those determining the existence of a private federal cause of action.

Section 1331 creates no substantive right or cause of action; it only confers jurisdiction over cases supported by an independently created federal cause of action.

Mead Corp. v. United States · filed 1980-05-30

Plaintiffs do not dispute the fact that section 1331 does not in itself create substantive rights or causes of action ... but only confers jurisdiction on the district courts to hear certain cases that are supported by an independently created substantive cause of action.

Section 1331(a) jurisdiction over a federal statutory claim depends on the plaintiff having a cause of action under the federal statute.

Guertin v. Hackerman · filed 1980-07-31(a)

At the outset, the Court finds that it has jurisdiction, if at all, only if the plaintiff has a cause of action under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Services Act which would thereby raise a federal question (28 U.S.C. § 1331(a)) or a civil rights claim (28 U.S.C. § 1343(4)), for the plaintiff has not shown that he has a cognizable federal right under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983.

Section 1331(a) does not provide jurisdiction over a claim that fails to establish a violation of the federal statute or rule on which federal-question jurisdiction depends.

Home Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Samuel T. Isaac & Associates, Inc. · filed 1980-09-08(a)

In that no statutory or Rule 10b-5 violation has been established, such jurisdiction cannot properly be founded upon 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

Section 1331(a) does not supply jurisdiction when the invoked federal statutes create no private cause of action and the remaining claims arise only under state law.

Mitchell v. First Nat. Bank of Dozier · filed 1981-01-19(a)

Plaintiff argues that federal jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) and the jurisdictional section of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681p. In other words, plaintiff contends that his suit involves claims arising under federal law. This Court does not agree. ... Plaintiff’s remaining claims all rest on state law. Since no independent basis of federal jurisdiction exists, these claims are due to be dismissed.

Section 1331(a) supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a dispute substantially dependent on construing provisions of the Clean Air Act.

California Tahoe Regional Planning Agency v. Sahara Tahoe Corp. · filed 1981-02-20(a)

Jurisdiction of the Court is based on federal questions, 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), and the Court’s pendent jurisdiction. Resolution of the case is substantially dependent upon the interpretation of 42 U.S.C. § 7410 (a)(5)(A)(iii) and 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a) of the Clean Air Act.

Section 1331 supplies no jurisdiction when the complaint fails to state any claim arising under federal law.

Nation v. United States Government · filed 1981-03-25

That is, because no proper claim is stated under federal law in the unamended Complaint, Defendants say this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction under either of the jurisdictional statutes set forth in the Complaint (28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343). It is, of course, axiomatic that in the absence of a properly stated claim, there is no claim over which a court may exercise subject matter jurisdiction or, indeed, determine whether it might have subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 supports jurisdiction over a federal duty-of-fair-representation claim arising under the National Labor Relations Act.

Brown v. INTERN. UNION, UNITED AUTO. AEROSPACE, ETC. · filed 1981-04-08

Plaintiffs' primary claim arises under Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 159, ... under which labor organizations, because of their statutory right to exclusively represent employees for purposes of collective bargaining, have a duty to fairly represent those employees. ... Jurisdiction is correctly premised on 28 U.S.C. § 1337, ... and 28 U.S.C. § 1331, ... and venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over an implied federal right of action to enforce labor protections in a federally required transit-funding agreement.

Division 1235, Amalgamated Transit Union, Afl-Cio v. Metropolitan Transit Authority, Ate · filed 1981-06-03

The District Court, D.C., 477 F.Supp. 1027, relying on 28 U.S.C. § 1331, assumed jurisdiction over the controversy. After hearing oral argument, it found that Section 13(c) of the Act gives the Union a right to enforce the arbitration provisions of the Section 13(c) agreement in federal court. ... Suffice it to say that the District Judge's resolution of the essential jurisdictional and substantive questions is entirely consistent with our approach in Jackson, and is hereby affirmed.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over international-law or treaty claims unless the cited law supplies the plaintiff a private right of action.

Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic · filed 1981-06-30

In short, unless treaties to which the United States is a party or even the law of nations generally provide a private right of action, no jurisdictional grant, be it § 1331 or § 1350, can aid a plaintiff seeking relief in federal district court.

Section 1331 supports jurisdiction over a union's federal action to enforce interest-arbitration rights in a transit-funding agreement required by the Urban Mass Transportation Act.

Division 1447, Amalgamated Transit Union, Afl-Cio v. Louisville and Jefferson County Transit Authority, D/B/A Transit Au · filed 1981-07-28

The district court concluded that it had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and under the UMTA. ... Consequently, the district court’s finding of subject matter jurisdiction and order compelling collective bargaining on binding interest arbitration were proper.

An Age Discrimination in Employment Act claim arises under federal law and therefore supports original jurisdiction under Section 1331.

Curtis P. BALDWIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1982-02-08

In this case the jurisdiction of the federal court could be based on either 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction) or 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity jurisdiction). Appellant’s ADEA claim “... arises under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States ... ”, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and, therefore, jurisdiction of the federal court could properly be based on Section 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over claims that a union breached a duty of fair representation arising under the Civil Service Reform Act, even though that Act contains no specific jurisdictional grant.

Karahalios v. Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center Presidio · filed 1982-07-23

... Thus, there was no need for Congress to write into the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 a section specifically conferring upon the district courts the jurisdiction to hear breach of duty of fair representation cases brought by federal employees. The district courts already have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to hear claims that the duty of fair representation, which duty arises out of the Act, has been breached.

A claim under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act arises under federal law and supports jurisdiction under Section 1331.

DB Orban, Inc. v. Orbex International, Inc. · filed 1983-03-16

That claim is one arising under the laws of the United States and jurisdiction rests on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as a “federal question” claim, or 28 U.S.C. § 1338, or both.

Section 1331 provides federal jurisdiction over a claim brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

Novak v. World Bank · filed 1983-04-01

Appellant properly based federal jurisdiction for this claim on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (Supp. V 1981).

Section 1331 supplies no federal-question jurisdiction over claims against a foreign air carrier for conduct between foreign points to which the Federal Aviation Act does not apply.

Cheng v. Boeing Co. · filed 1983-06-20

Further, the Federal Aviation Act, 49 U.S.C. §§ 1301-1542, does not apply to the activities of a foreign carrier operating between two foreign points without contact in the United States. ... There is therefore no federal question jurisdiction over Far Eastern.

Section 1331 does not provide general federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint states no claim within the federal statute on which it relies.

Parini v. INT. BR. OF TEAM., CHAUF., WARE. & HELP. · filed 1983-07-27

Once it is demonstrated (as the text proceeds to do) there is no subject matter jurisdiction under the Act, general federal question jurisdiction is lacking under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as well.

Section 1331 supplies no jurisdiction when the complaint does not invoke a federal statutory right or a private cause of action under the federal statute relied upon.

Parini v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 179 · filed 1983-07-27

Once it is demonstrated (as the text proceeds to do) there is no subject matter jurisdiction under the Act, general federal question jurisdiction is lacking under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as well.

Section 1331 does not support a declaratory action when neither of the federal statutes invoked by the plaintiff authorizes adjudication of the claim.

Air Line Pilots Ass'n International v. Trans World Airlines · filed 1983-08-23

ALPA's pleadings assert jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1336 and base its claim to federal question jurisdiction alternatively on two federal statutes: the RLA or the ADEA. ... In sum, the purpose and structure of the ADEA do not permit us to provide an avenue for implementing ALPA's attempt to use the Act to cut off the rights of its older members. Accordingly, we hold that we lack jurisdiction under either the RLA or the ADEA to entertain ALPA's declaratory judgment action. Dismissal of it must therefore be affirmed.

Section 1331 gives a district court federal-question jurisdiction over an action asserting federal securities and RICO claims.

Treco, Inc. v. Land of Lincoln Savings & Loan · filed 1983-09-21

The Court has federal question jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because the Amended Complaint is brought pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78aa (Counts I, II, V, VI, and VII), 18 U.S.C. § 1965 (Count III), and the principles of pendent jurisdiction (Count IV).

Section 1331 gives a district court federal-question jurisdiction over an action asserting federal securities and RICO claims.

Treco, Inc. v. Land of Lincoln Sav. and Loan · filed 1983-10-07

The Court has federal question jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because the Amended Complaint is brought pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78aa (Counts I, II, V, VI, and VII), 18 U.S.C. § 1965 (Count III), and the principles of pendent jurisdiction (Count IV).

Section 1331 is a valid but unnecessary jurisdictional basis for a Title VII action because Title VII itself grants federal jurisdiction.

Evans v. Meadow Steel Products, Inc. · filed 1983-10-12

Regarding § 1331, plaintiff, in her complaint, contends that the federal question is “discrimination on the basis of race, a violation of Title VII.” (Plaintiff’s Complaint, paragraph 2). Certainly this civil action does arise under the laws of the United States (e.g., Title VII). For this reason § 1331 is not an incorrect basis of jurisdiction, it is, however, an unnecessary basis. Plaintiff’s only substantive rights in this case are pursuant to Title VII. Title VII itself grants federal court jurisdiction, 42 U.S.C. § 200Oe — 5(f)(3). Although unnecessary there is no real reason to dismiss § 1331 as a basis of jurisdiction. Defendants’ motion as to § 1331 is, therefore, DENIED.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction over claims arising under the Commodity Exchange Act.

J.E. Hoetger & Co. v. Ascencio · filed 1983-10-12

A federal question exists with regard to claims under the CEA, and jurisdiction lies under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives a district court federal-question jurisdiction over an action asserting federal securities and RICO claims.

Treco, Inc. v. Land of Lincoln Savings & Loan · filed 1983-10-31

The Court has federal question jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because the Second Amended Complaint is brought pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78aa (Counts I, II, V and VI), 18 U.S.C. § 1965 (Count III), and the principles of pendent jurisdiction (Counts IV, VII and VIII).

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over Equal Pay Act enforcement actions because those suits arise under federal law.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Cross v. The Hernando Bank, Inc., Cross · filed 1984-02-13

In addition, the district court had jurisdiction under both 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1345. Section 1331 provides that “the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.” A suit brought under the Equal Pay Act is obviously an action arising under a law of the United States.

Section 1331 supports jurisdiction over a labor union member’s breach-of-fair-representation claim.

Ponce v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern California · filed 1984-03-21

The court possesses jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ breach of fair representation claim pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 186(c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 and § 1337, rather than the Commodity Exchange Act itself, confer jurisdiction over civil actions arising under that Act.

Abdallah W. Tamari, Ludwig W. Tamari, Farah Tamari, Co-Partners D/B/A Wahbe Tamari & Sons Co. v. Bache & Co. (Lebanon) S · filed 1984-04-09

Jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the CEA is conferred by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337 rather than by any specific provision in the CEA.

Section 1331 jurisdiction over a longshoreman’s injury claim against a time charterer can be founded only on the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act.

Dougherty v. Navigazione San Paolo, S.P.A. Medafrica Line · filed 1984-05-04

Although not expressly alleged in the complaint, federal question jurisdiction can be founded only on the LHWCA, which grants a remedy against the “vessel” to a longshoreman who is injured at work.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over federal trademark-infringement claims, alongside Section 1338 and the Lanham Act’s jurisdictional provisions.

El Greco Leather Products Co. v. Shoe World, Inc. · filed 1984-12-21

Jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) and (b), and 15 U.S.C. §§ 1121 and 1125(a).

Section 1331 supplies independent federal-question jurisdiction over a claim for breach of the statutory duty of fair representation.

Aguinaga v. John Morrell & Co. · filed 1985-02-20

It should be noted that this Court has independent federal question jurisdiction for the claim of violation of the duty of fair representation. ... 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which plaintiffs specified in their complaint.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over Lanham Act Section 43(a) suits even when the plaintiff's trademark is not federally registered.

A.J. Canfield Co. v. Vess Beverages, Inc. · filed 1985-07-08

This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. It makes no difference to suit under Section 1125(a) (Act § 43(a)) that Canfield’s trademark is not federally registered.

The federal Wreck Statute creates no substantive maritime right that can support Section 1331 jurisdiction; in the case, only the Jones Act supplied a federal-question basis and Wreck Statute duties rested in admiralty.

Duhon v. Koch Exploration Co. · filed 1986-02-24

The statute itself ... does not ... establish a substantive maritime right under which Fruge’s. cause of action “arises” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331. As such, the only basis for federal question jurisdiction in the case at bar is pursuant to the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 688, and any civil breach of the duties imposed by the Wreck Statute is jurisdictionally grounded in admiralty.

A claim under the Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act arises under federal law for § 1331 purposes, and the domestic-relations limitation on diversity jurisdiction does not bar that federal-question claim.

Meade v. Meade · filed 1986-03-20

The jurisdiction of this court is invoked by Plaintiff under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. More particularly, Plaintiff claims that a federal question is presented under 28 U.S.C. § 1738A, which codified part of the Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act of 1980 (hereinafter PKPA), Pub.L. No. 96-611, § 8(a), 94 Stat. 3566, 3569 (1980). ... The court is satisfied that this case “arises under” a federal statute, namely 28 U.S.C. § 1738A; therefore consideration of the jurisdictional issue is proper. It is important to note that the traditional limitation on federal diversity jurisdiction in cases involving domestic relations does not apply in this action since a federal question has been alleged under 28 U.S.C. § 1738A.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over the federal statutory claims before the court.

Poquette v. Community State Bank · filed 1986-04-08

Jurisdiction exists for these claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides subject-matter jurisdiction over an action brought under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(2).

Department of Education v. Mr. and Mrs. S. · filed 1986-04-08

This court has subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(2).

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over nonfederal-employee duty-of-fair-representation claims, and its lack of an amount-in-controversy limit lets it reach claims formerly maintainable only under Section 1337.

Gorski v. Local Union 134, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers · filed 1986-05-14

But ... Warren ... does not dictate a different result here because, absent a federal-employment situation, Section 1331 is clearly applicable. Only to the extent Section 1337 contains no amount-in-controversy requirement did it create (for commerce cases) a special exception to the strictures of general federal-question jurisdiction. But now that Section 1331 itself contains no amount-in-controversy limit, anything that could have been brought only under Section 1337 can be brought under Section 1331.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a Federal Employers’ Liability Act action.

Long v. ILLINOIS CENT. GULF R. CO. IN PADUCAH, KY. · filed 1986-12-30

This is an action under the Federal Employers Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. § 51, against ICG and others, for negligence in allowing unsafe exposure to asbestos in a workplace. Jurisdiction in this Court is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides subject-matter jurisdiction over a federal employee’s Title VII and ADEA promotion-discrimination claims.

Vicor v. Rosenberg · filed 1987-02-19

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 29 U.S.C. § 633a(c), and 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f) and 2000e-16(b).

Section 1331 does not supply a federal enforcement action under the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, whose commands are directed to state courts and which does not authorize suit in federal court.

Leyda v. Roach · filed 1987-01-08

All provisions of the PKPA are directed to state courts. The PKPA does not expressly authorize suit in federal court to enforce its provisions.

A civil RICO claim falls within Section 1331's original jurisdiction and is removable from state court.

Contemporary Services Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc. · filed 1987-03-02

A federal claim under RICO would, if sued upon alone, clearly be removable as within a district court’s original jurisdiction as provided by 28 U.S.C. section 1331.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a civil RICO action.

United Airlines, Inc. v. CEI Industries, Inc. · filed 1987-03-03

This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 18 U.S.C. § 1964.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over federal securities-law claims regardless of whether diversity jurisdiction exists.

Nottingham v. General American Communications Corp. · filed 1987-03-06

The district court had federal question jurisdiction in any event under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j & 78aa.

Section 1331 and the Postal Reorganization Act provide jurisdiction over a postal union’s action to vacate an arbitration decision upholding an employee’s termination.

National Post Office Mail Handlers v. United States Postal Service · filed 1987-03-29

Jurisdiction is alleged under 39 U.S.C. § 1208(b), § 409(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This question is not disputed, and I hold jurisdiction lies.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over de novo review under the Contract Disputes Act of a Tennessee Valley Authority contracting officer’s decisions.

Jones-Hailey v. Corporation of the Tennessee Valley Authority · filed 1987-04-13

This Court has jurisdiction to decide this matter under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337 and 41 U.S.C. § 607(g)(2).

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a civil RICO claim removed from state court.

Fabrico Manufacturing Corp. v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co. · filed 1987-04-27

We have jurisdiction over the RICO claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337 and 18 U.S.C. § 1964.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a Lanham Act trademark-infringement action.

Duracell, Inc. v. Global Imports, Inc. · filed 1987-05-06

Jurisdiction was conferred on this Court by the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1121 and 1125, and under the principles of pendent jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over federal employment-discrimination claims under Title VII and § 1981.

Lowery v. WMC-TV · filed 1987-06-12

The Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over federal automobile-dealer statutory claims.

Fred Menke's Car Store, Inc. v. Volvo North America Corp. · filed 1987-06-15

Jurisdiction herein rests on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over an EEOC Title VII sex-discrimination action.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. FLC & Bros. Rebel, Inc. · filed 1987-06-29

This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337, 1343, and 1345 (1982).

Section 1331 does not supply jurisdiction when the federal statutes invoked create no cause of action for the plaintiffs.

Thomas v. Joint Apprenticeship Committee of Plumbing & Pipefitting Industry, Local No. 225 · filed 1987-07-17

Since no cause of action exists under either section 301 of the LMRA, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 185, or section I of the NAA, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 50, plaintiffs cannot claim jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1331, 1337 or 2201.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over federal constitutional, FOIA, and Privacy Act claims.

O'Connor v. United States · filed 1987-07-21

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as well as 5 U.S.C. §§ 552 and 552a.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a carrier's implied federal cause of action under the Shipping Act to collect tariff charges from a shipper.

Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. Murrey & Son's Co. Inc. · filed 1987-08-10

Accordingly, the district court correctly found that an implied private cause of action under the Shipping Act allows carriers to sue shippers to collect fees owed pursuant to the published tariffs. ... Jurisdiction also lies under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) and 28 U.S.C. § 1337 (regulation of commerce).

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a Privacy Act action.

Covert v. Herrington · filed 1987-09-15

Subject matter jurisdiction exists under 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a Truth in Lending Act action.

Goldberg v. Delaware Olds, Inc. · filed 1987-10-02

The Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337 and 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e).

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a mining operator's alleged violation of an approved state regulatory program when the federal mining statute itself creates no rights or duties between the operator and private persons.

Donald H. Haydo and Patricia A. Haydo, His Wife v. Amerikohl Mining, Inc · filed 1987-10-05

By their very terms these sections of the statute merely prescribe minimum performance standards which must be required of applicants for permits under a state or federal regulatory-program before the program may be approved by the Secretary. They do not themselves create any rights and duties as between operators and other persons. The SMCRA itself is not violated by an operator’s violation of a permit condition, even though the SMCRA requires that the condition be imposed. Therefore this is not an action arising under federal law, and there is no federal jurisdiction under §§ 1331 and 1337.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a civil claim under the federal wiretap statute.

Nations v. Nations · filed 1987-10-09

The court has jurisdiction of the matter by virtue of the federal question presented. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.