28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a federal fisheries dispute alongside the governing statute’s exclusive jurisdiction provision.

Gulf of Maine Trawlers v. United States · filed 1987-11-30

This Court’s jurisdiction over those motions is conferred by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 2201, and 2202, and also by the exclusive jurisdiction provision in the Magnuson Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1861(d).

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a civil federal wiretap claim.

Kempf v. Kempf · filed 1988-01-11

The Court's jurisdiction over the complaint is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as the cause of action arises under the Federal wiretapping statutes, 18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over federal employment-discrimination and Rehabilitation Act claims.

Ross v. William Beaumont Hospital · filed 1988-01-15

Thus, this Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as well as under the principles of pendent jurisdiction.

Section 1331 covers a federal statutory cause of action when federal law creates the claim or the right to relief necessarily depends on resolving a substantial federal question; an EMTALA private action satisfies that standard.

Thornton v. Southwest Detroit Hospital · filed 1990-02-09

Federal courts have jurisdiction under section 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.” ... There can be no doubt that federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction in suits brought under the Act.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction only when a federal rule is accompanied by a right of action to enforce it; Section 1331 itself does not create that right, and a non-state defendant generally must be sued under an enforcement right found in the substantive federal statute.

Dillon v. Combs · filed 1990-02-15

A federal rule of decision is necessary but not sufficient for federal jurisdiction. There must also be a right of action to enforce that rule. ... Section 1331 does not furnish it. Unless the defendant is a state actor, so that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 may supply the right of action, ... the entitlement to enforce the federal rule generally must be found within the statute in question. Here Indiana comes up short: the Risk Retention Act does not create a private right to enforce § 3903(f).

Section 1331 does not itself create a right of action to enforce a federal rule; without a private enforcement right in the substantive statute, the federal court lacks jurisdiction.

Dillon v. Combs · filed 1990-04-03

A federal rule of decision is necessary but not sufficient for federal jurisdiction. There must also be a right of action to enforce that rule. ... Section 1331 does not furnish it.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over civil RICO claims arising under federal law.

Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Westinghouse Electric Co. · filed 1991-02-28

We find that this court has original jurisdiction over Edison's RICO claims, and thus, jurisdiction to hear Edison’s claims against Westinghouse. To begin, district courts have original jurisdiction of all civil actions under the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a claim created by the Torture Victim Protection Act, including when that Act applies retroactively.

Xuncax v. Gramajo · filed 1995-04-12

Given retroactive application of the TVPA, federal statutory law clearly creates the cause of action upon which plaintiff Ortiz’s lawsuit is founded. The case thus “arises under” the laws of the United States for purposes of federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction when the complaint contains causes of action created by federal law.

Stone v. Bank of New York Mellon, N.A. · filed 2015-04-20

Furthermore, the district court had federal question subject matter jurisdiction over ...this case because Stone’s complaint contained several causes of action created by federal law.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a claim under a federal statute that creates a federal cause of action; whether the plaintiff can establish coverage under that statute is a merits question.

Weiss v. Aniwa LLC · filed 2023-01-25

Defendants conflate coverage under the FLSA (a merits-related question) with subject-matter jurisdiction. The court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the action because the FLSA is a federal statute that creates a federal cause of action for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts a federal statutory cause of action.

Harrison v. Presbyterian Healthcare Services, Inc. · filed 2025-01-07

The assertion of this federal cause of action under a federal statute is sufficient to grant federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts causes of action created by federal statutes.

Clark v. US Bancorp/U.S. Bank · filed 2025-12-19

Clark’s invocation of these federal statutes is enough to confer federal jurisdiction upon the Court.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over an application to confirm an arbitration award when the application clearly states a cause of action under a federal statute.

United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Uni · filed 2024-08-13

To establish jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the application must clearly state a cause of action contained within a federal statute.

Section 1331(a) supplies jurisdiction when the matter in controversy arises under ERISA.

M & R Inv. Co., Inc. v. Fitzsimmons · filed 1980-03-11(a)

This Court has jurisdiction under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), in that the matter in controversy arises under the provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), Title 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.

Section 1331 does not independently support removal of an ERISA benefits dispute when the claims are not justiciable under ERISA’s jurisdictional provision.

Austin v. General American Life Insurance · filed 1980-10-08

First, the averment in the petition for removal that jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is nothing more than a conclusion that, where “ERISA jurisdiction” exists under 29 U.S.C. § 1132, federal question jurisdiction exists under § 1331. Without jurisdiction over the claim under § 1132 no federal question jurisdiction under § 1331 exists.

A complaint invoking ERISA based on severance pay establishes federal-question jurisdiction only if it alleges facts showing an employee-benefit plan of the type ERISA covers.

Molyneux v. Arthur Guinness & Sons, P.L.C. · filed 1985-06-28

Disputes concerning severance pay may, but do not necessarily, implicate ERISA and support federal jurisdiction. To establish federal jurisdiction, the complaint must allege such facts as will show the establishment or maintenance of a “plan, fund, or program” of the type covered by ERISA. ... Under the facts alleged, then, the court sees no basis for asserting federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over an action arising under ERISA.

Brock v. Self · filed 1986-04-17

A. Jurisdiction is vested in this Court as the action arises under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, ... et seq. ... (1974). 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(e)(1), (f); 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over ERISA and LMRA claims arising under federal statutes.

Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund v. Gallagher · filed 1987-09-17

Because the Complaint alleges claims under ERISA and the LMRA this action arises under federal statute and therefore the court maintains subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1982).

Section 1331(a) supplies federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff’s cause of action arises under ERISA.

Benvenuto v. Connecticut General Life Insurance · filed 1988-01-27(a)

This Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) in light of Judge Ackerman’s Opinion and Order dated as of September 25, 1987 which states that plaintiff’s cause of action arises under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, ... The technical issue of defective pleading aside, and because federal question jurisdiction unquestionably exists, this Court must now address defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when federal statutes are only factual background and the claims arise under state law.

Gonsalves v. Glauberman · filed 2022-09-30

Because these are all state law claims, federal question jurisdiction is lacking in this case. See § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a private plaintiff cites federal criminal statutes that provide no private right of action.

Womack v. Memphis Mental Health Institute · filed 2023-08-04

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 federal district courts have “subject-matter jurisdiction over all claims ‘arising under’ federal law.” ... But Plaintiff’s citation of federal statutes here fails to give the Court federal question jurisdiction. ... Naming federal statutes that do not include a private right of action does not automatically confer Article III standing.

Section 1331 does not support jurisdiction over alleged violations of the Home Owners’ Loan Act when Congress created neither a private right of action for mortgage borrowers nor a federal-common-law remedy.

Taylor v. Citizens Federal Savings And Loan Association · filed 1988-06-13

Citizens Federal responded to the complaint with a motion to dismiss, asserting that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 because HOLA does not provide for a private right of action. ... Because we find no express language or other evidence of congressional intent to provide a private right of action, we must affirm the district court on this issue. ... Nor can we agree with Taylor that her case is governed by federal common law.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction when the plaintiff identifies no federal-question cause of action affording relief and must instead rely on a specific citizen-suit provision.

Cordero Mining Co. v. Vandyke · filed 1988-06-21

The plaintiffs assert that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) and 30 U.S.C.A. § 1270 (citizens suit under the Act) confer jurisdiction on this court. ... Apart from a general assertion that they have no adequate remedy at law, the plaintiffs do not raise any federal question cause of action affording them relief. ... Under these circumstances, their jurisdictional claim must rest on 30 U.S.C.A. § 1270.

Section 1331 covers a claim under a federal statute when Congress intended that statute to create a private federal cause of action.

Bryant v. Riddle Memorial Hospital · filed 1988-06-30

The plain language of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act clearly provides a private cause of action to enforce its provisions. ... Therefore, it follows that individuals who allege violations arising under the Act should be afforded an opportunity to seek redress in federal court.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction merely because a plaintiff is an ERISA plan participant; the plaintiff must assert a colorable claim arising under the plan’s terms or ERISA itself.

Hughes v. General Motors Corp. · filed 1988-07-14

It remains to be considered whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331, which says that “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” ... although plaintiffs, as former employees who are receiving benefits under the GM plan are undoubtedly “participants” in the plan, that fact alone does not give the federal courts jurisdiction to adjudicate claims that arise neither under the terms of the plan nor under the terms of the statute. ... they do not arise under the terms of the plan, they do not arise under the terms of the statute, and thus they are not justiciable in a federal court.

A complaint alleging violation of an Act of Congress presents a federal question within Section 1331 and can support pendent jurisdiction over state claims arising from the same facts.

Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. American Metal Exchange Corp. · filed 1988-07-18

In addition, the complaint reveals a federal question as it alleges a violation of an “act of Congress” and thereby presents a basis for subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Thus, since alleged violations of the CEA present both a federal question and serve as an independent basis for jurisdiction, I find that I have subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate this controversy and will exercise pendent jurisdiction over the state claims since they arise out of the same facts on which the federal claim is based.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a longshoreman's Section 905(b) vessel-negligence claim because Section 905(b) did not create a federal statutory cause of action.

Stevenson v. Point Marine, Inc. · filed 1988-10-27

Because section 905(b) did not create a federal statutory cause of action, a plaintiff-longshoreman cannot seek 905(b) relief in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a private action seeking recovery under CERCLA when complete diversity is absent.

Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. United States Gypsum · filed 1989-03-28

As complete diversity between all of the plaintiffs and all of the defendants is lacking, this court presently has federal question jurisdiction over the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as plaintiffs seek recovery pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, (“CERC-LA”) 42 U.S.C. § 9601, et seq.

Section 1331, together with the jurisdictional provisions governing RICO, Robinson-Patman, and commerce claims, supplies subject-matter jurisdiction over those federal claims.

Anchor Glass Container Corp. v. Stand Energy Corp. · filed 1989-03-28

Here, it is clear that this court has subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs claims.

A claim requiring interpretation of a federal statute falls within Section 1331, but it must be dismissed when the plaintiff has neither an express nor an implied right of action under that statute.

Consolidated Edison Co. v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation · filed 1989-07-25

Adjudicating the claim that the intake requirements violate the CWA would require interpretation of a federal statute, thus providing jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Since plaintiff has neither an express nor an implied right of action under the CWA, its claim that the intake requirements would violate the Act must be dismissed.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over civil suits involving the FDIC because Section 1819 deems them to arise under federal law, except for the statute's state-bank, state-law exception.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Hartford Insurance Company of Illinois · filed 1989-07-25

Section 1819 Fourth provides that any civil suit to which the FDIC is a party is deemed to arise under federal law (so that Sec. 1331 supplies jurisdiction) unless the FDIC acts as receiver of a state bank and the suit "involves only the rights or obligations of depositors, creditors, stockholders, and such State bank under State law". ... A tort claim against the FDIC is not one that involves "only" creditors' or stockholders' rights.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction to enforce a federal environmental provision when Congress created no implied federal right of action for the plaintiff.

Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation, Inc. v. Pegues · filed 1989-07-27

Having found that the jurisdictional grants in §§ 1365 and 1369 do not apply in the present case and further having found that the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 since it is of the opinion that a federal right of action to enforce 33 U.S.C. § 1370 is not implicit in the FWPCA, the Court finds no basis upon which it can exercise jurisdiction over this cause.

A state wrongful-discharge claim does not arise under Section 1331 merely because the complaint cites a federal statute as one source of state public policy when resolving the claim requires no construction of that federal statute.

Donofry v. Nazareth Hospital · filed 1989-09-27

The fact that one of the sources of public policy mentioned in the complaints is a federal statute does not transform these actions into ones “arising under” the laws of the United States. We reject the bootstrapping argument that anytime a federal court decides whether a federal statute does or does not confer jurisdiction, the court has, of necessity, decided a dispute concerning the statute sufficient to confer jurisdiction. To decide the plaintiffs’ cases, a court will not have to pass upon the validity, construction, or effect of OSHA.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a Medicaid recipient’s federal statutory and regulatory challenge to a state agency’s denial of benefits.

Visser v. Taylor · filed 1990-09-10

1.The court has subject matter jurisdiction over SRS’s proposed Medicaid disal-lowance under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Section 1331 of Title 28 provides district courts with jurisdiction over actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Section 1331 permits district court jurisdiction over a federal statutory claim when an agency erroneously denies claimants the preliminary finding needed to seek arbitration.

Barker v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad · filed 1992-06-09

However, the RRB was incorrect; it did have the authority, and indeed the duty, to investigate plaintiffs' claims. Since the RRB had already made factual findings as to plaintiff Faunce, which findings are equally applicable to the remaining eleven plaintiffs, those plaintiffs did not need to compel the RRB to make factual findings. Thus, it was permissible for them to pursue their claim against CSX in the federal district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a claim that a state assessment violates a federal statutory tax immunity states a claim for relief.

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission · filed 1992-09-29

Challenges to jurisdiction based on the legal insufficiency of a claim are subject to the standards of a 12(b)(6) motion, and dismissal is warranted only if defendant shows that no claim has been stated. ... Accordingly, plaintiff has stated, a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) and raised a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction to hear claims alleging violations of federal statutes.

Abenaki Nation of Mississquoi v. Hughes · filed 1992-10-22

The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to hear these claims.

Section 1331 permits a court to hear a claim asserted under a federal statute unless the claim is entirely frivolous, even if the claim may fail on the merits.

Licata & Co. Inc. v. Goldberg · filed 1993-02-01

Where a claim purports to be made under a federal statute, the court has jurisdiction to rule upon it unless it is entirely frivolous, even if jurisdiction must be exercised to dismiss the claim.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over claims arising under the APA, NEPA, and NFMA.

Glisson v. United States Forest Service · filed 1993-08-24

The plaintiffs amended complaint raises issues under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 701-706 (1988), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4370d (1988), and the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), 16 U.S.C. § 1604 (1988). Therefore, the Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1988).

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a nonfrivolous federal statutory claim even when the existence of a private right of action under the statute is unsettled.

Lake v. First Nationwide Bank · filed 1995-09-14

The fact that various courts have issued opinions, including a highly persuasive one in this district, which have found no private right of action under § 10 of RESPA, does not signify that this Court is without jurisdiction to approve this settlement. ... Because the Third Circuit has not decided whether an implied right of action exists under § 10 of RESPA, and given that there is some appellate authority supporting its existence, “the cause of action asserted by the Lakes is a non-frivolous cause of action sufficient to invoke this Court's federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.”

Section 1331 gives a federal court subject matter jurisdiction over a sufficiently pleaded EMTALA claim.

Hart v. Mazur · filed 1995-11-06

As Hart has successfully pleaded a cause of action under EMTALA, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over her claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The defendants’ Rule 12(b)(1) motions are therefore denied.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a claim asserting a right of action under a federal statute, even when the claim ultimately fails on the merits.

Henslin v. Kennedy Trans. · filed 1997-10-21

This is a federal question, and thus the district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Although Henslin’s claim is without merit, we believe it does assert a claim grounded in a federal question under the ICA.

Section 1331 gives federal courts subject-matter jurisdiction over claims arising under a federal statute even when a disputed element may defeat the claim on the merits.

JTH Tax, Inc. v. H & R Block Eastern Tax Services, Inc. · filed 2001-02-23

However, this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over Lanham Act false advertising claims by virtue of its federal question jurisdiction. ... Properly stated, then, Defendants’ allegation cannot be that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Instead, Defendants can only contend that Plaintiffs have not established an element of liability, the “in commerce” element.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over claims brought under the federal RICO statute.

Hanninen v. Fedoravitch · filed 2008-10-27

Ms. Hanninen’s RICO claims against the non-Bank Defendants certainly fall within the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, and the Court might then be able to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Bank Defendants under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a plaintiff alleges a violation of a federal statutory right, even if the named defendant may be improper.

Claxton v. Connecticut General Life Insurance · filed 2010-03-24

Furthermore, the Court’s reservations regarding Connecticut General’s party status need not compel the Court to dismiss the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff has alleged a violation of a federal statutory right, thereby presenting a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts subject matter jurisdiction over a claim made pursuant to a federal statute.

Hutchinson v. D.C. Public Schools · filed 2010-06-17

Because plaintiffs claim here is made pursuant to a federal statute, the Court finds that it has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and that the Motion to Remand the case must be DENIED.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts original jurisdiction over a longshore worker’s claim brought under federal law.

Rondeno v. Law Office of William S. Vincent · filed 2013-03-13

“The [federal] 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. Mr. Rondeno brings his complaint under federal law, 33 U.S.C. § 901 et seq. ... Thus any federal court was a court of competent jurisdiction for his lawsuit.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a federal statutory claim despite a dispute about whether the statute ultimately applies, unless the claim is made solely to obtain jurisdiction or is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

U.S. Commodity Futures Exchange Commission v. Vision Financial Partners, LLC · filed 2016-06-03

Even though the parties dispute whether the Act ultimately applies, jurisdiction lies unless the claims under the Act “clearly appear[ ] to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction or where such a claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.” Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682-83, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946).

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over claims created by federal law, including claims under Section 1981.

Dorval v. Moe's Fresh Market · filed 2018-09-10

Because “federal law create[d]” Dorval’s Section 1981 causes of action, these claims “arise[] under federal law.” See Gunn, 568 U.S. at 257. Accordingly, the Court may exercise federal question jurisdiction over Dorval’s Section 1981 claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (granting district courts subject matter jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the . . . laws . . . of the United States”).

Section 1331 gives federal district courts subject matter jurisdiction when a complaint asserts federal statutory claims.

Harbord v. MTC Financial Inc · filed 2020-03-16

The Amended Complaint has now asserted federal statutory claims. Accordingly, the Court has federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges violations of federal statutes.

Jones v. United States Department of Education · filed 2020-03-30

First, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the FCRA, FDCPA, and UCC, which are federal statutes giving rise to federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over claims arising under federal statutes, including the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Doxzon v. Department of Human Services of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania · filed 2020-07-15

Because Doxzon bring claims arising under federal statutes—the ADA, RA, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983—this court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”).

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over federal statutory claims even if those claims may fail on the merits.

McVay v. Stefanou · filed 2021-07-30

Even if McVay’s federal claims ultimately are somehow substantively defective, the Court should not dismiss them for want of jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction over a claim under a federal statute even if the claim may later be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Howard v. Goodman · filed 2021-09-07

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Count IV of the amended complaint presents a claim under the Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, regardless of whether that claim will survive any future motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts subject matter jurisdiction over a claim arising under a federal statute that creates a cause of action.

The Redeemed Christian Church v. Prince George's County, Maryland · filed 2021-11-03

When a claim arises under a federal statute that creates a cause of action, as RLUIPA does, subject matter jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. According to the County, the district court applied an unconstitutionally broad definition of “zoning,” which undermines federal question jurisdiction. We reject that contention as frivolous.

Section 1331 gives district courts subject-matter jurisdiction over federal RICO claims.

American Trade Partners, L.P. v. A-1 International Importing Enterprises, Ltd. · filed 1990-11-19

Subject matter jurisdiction over the RICO claims is based on a federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts original federal-question jurisdiction over claims alleging violations of the federal RICO statute.

Doe v. NORWICH ROMAN CATHOLIC CORP. · filed 2009-01-16

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, district courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions which arise under federal law. ... Applying these principles to this case, the Court has federal-question jurisdiction over Plaintiffs RICO claims because she has pleaded violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over claims brought under RICO because they arise under federal law.

Busby v. Capital One, N.A. · filed 2011-01-06

In her amended complaint, the plaintiff has asserted claims against the defendants based on RICO, a federal statute. ... These claims plainly “arise under” federal law for purposes of removal.

Section 1331 gives district courts subject matter jurisdiction over an action asserting a federal RICO claim.

Finnegan v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. · filed 2018-08-21

The district court properly denied Finnegan’s motion to remand his action to state court because the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the action was properly removed under 28 U.S.C. § 1441.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction when a complaint facially presents federal claims, including civil RICO claims.

Ryan v. Salisbury · filed 2019-05-14

Federal question jurisdiction exists when a complaint facially presents a federal question. ... The Court therefore has federal question jurisdiction over those claims, which are asserted against all defendants.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the operative amended complaint contains no federal claims.

NOBREGA v. YORK COUNTY SHERIFF · filed 2021-03-29

Given that the Court has granted Plaintiff’s leave to amend his complaint, that Plaintiff's complaint, as amended, does not include any federal claims, and that there is no basis for diversity jurisdiction, the Court would lack subject matter jurisdiction over the claims.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts federal-question jurisdiction over claims brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

OJEDA V. LOUIS BERGER GROUP (DOMESTIC), INC. · filed 2021-04-12

Plaintiffs bring their claims pursuant to a federal statute, the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), so there would be federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 no longer provides original jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after all federal claims are dismissed.

Carter v. GardaWorld Securities Services - US · filed 2021-05-20

Because this Court has dismissed Carter’s federal claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Court no longer has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 supplies no original jurisdiction when the plaintiff withdraws all federal constitutional claims and only state-law claims remain.

Solomon v. Village of Monticello Police Department · filed 2021-08-13

Thus, no claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction remain in this action.

Section 1331 requires a colorable federal claim; allegations that raise no genuine federal question do not confer federal-question jurisdiction.

Li v. Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. · filed 2021-09-07

Moreover, “a plaintiff cannot create federal jurisdiction under § 1331 simply by alleging a federal claim where in reality none exists. Subject matter jurisdiction will lie only where the court determines that the substance of the plaintiff’s allegations raises a federal question.” ... Here, Li has failed to plead any colorable federal claims.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction for federal causes of action; when all such claims are dismissed and none remain, it provides no remaining basis for jurisdiction.

Lancaster v. Baltimore County Maryland · filed 2021-09-13

Here, Plaintiffs assert no other causes of action under federal law. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 185–340). All parties in this case are citizens of or entities organized within the State of Maryland. (See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 1–12). No grounds for this Court’s jurisdiction remain.

Section 1331 gives federal courts original jurisdiction over claims arising under the federal enclave doctrine.

Jimenez v. CRC Property Management West Inc. · filed 2021-09-17

Federal courts have original jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, including claims pursuant to the federal enclave doctrine.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over colorable constitutional claims even when the claims may fail on the merits.

Hashim Al Balad Muhammad v. City of Moreno Valley Code Enforcement · filed 2022-03-21

Because the claims are colorable, the court will not dismiss the Complaint on the grounds that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and the Complaint is frivolous.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a colorable Takings Clause claim arising from condemnation or eminent domain.

Schmidt v. City of Lima · filed 2022-03-24

Condemnation and eminent domain do implicate federal question jurisdiction, via the Takings Clause, and Plaintiff’s claims thereunder are more than frivolous. Accordingly, the Court will not dismiss the City under Rule 12(b)(1) and instead will proceed to the City’s other arguments.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint pleads federal claims.

Wescott v. Beresford Corporation · filed 2022-04-08

There are two bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction: (1) federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and (2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. ... The Complaint pleads federal claims, so federal question jurisdiction exists at this stage.

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

(PS) George v. Sohal · filed 2022-04-12

In this case, the court plainly does not have federal question jurisdiction over the action, because plaintiff does not assert any federal claims against defendants.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted federal cause of action is patently without merit.

Hyman v. Mashantucket Pequot Indian Tribe of Connecticut · filed 2022-06-09

However, simply purporting to raise a federal issue in a complaint will not automatically confer federal question jurisdiction: A federal district court may only exercise federal question jurisdiction if the federal cause of action alleged is not patently without merit.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the operative amended complaint contains no federal claims.

Lucas v. City of Brunswick · filed 2022-08-16

With Plaintiff’s second amended complaint containing no federal claims, this Court lacks federal-question subject matter jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint merely reserves the possibility of adding a federal claim later.

Baca v. Walt Disney Studios · filed 2022-08-23

In other words, just because the Complaint could raise a federal question does not mean that it does. To “raise” something requires action, not merely the potential for action. In this instance, Plaintiff has chosen not to raise the federal question of whether the Defendants violated the ADA by leaving the count reserved. He may do so in the future in an amended complaint, but that possibility is speculative. The Court will not hear a case based on the speculative possibility that a federal issue may be presented at some time in the future.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction to decide an amended complaint that raises federal claims.

Patel v. AR Group Tennessee, LLC · filed 2022-08-29

Thus, the Court plainly had subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the motion to dismiss the SAC because the SAC raised a federal question, and the Order is not void for a purported lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives a district court federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts claims under federal statutes.

Byrd v. JPMorgan Chase Bank National Association · filed 2022-09-21

Defendant, who timely filed its Notice of Removal (ECF No. 1) and Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 26), was never in default; this Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 due to the numerous federal statutes cited by Plaintiff in his Complaint.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when a plaintiff asserts a federal claim.

Toby v. Gennette · filed 2022-11-02

Accordingly, the court finds exercise of jurisdiction proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 where Toby asserts a federal claim.

Section 1331 does not give a federal court original jurisdiction over a state mortgage foreclosure action merely because the defendant raises federal claims.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association v. Washington · filed 2022-11-23

District courts have original jurisdiction of “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Washington’s claims, thus, are irrelevant to this Court’s jurisdiction over the Foreclosure Case. ... The Foreclosure Case arises under the Illinois Mortgage Foreclosure Law, 735 ILCS 5/15-1101, et seq., and does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Thus, this Court does not have original jurisdiction, and removal pursuant to 1441(a) is improper.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction on removal when the operative complaint contains no federal claims.

Waveguard International v. Synergy Science · filed 2023-03-02

Having found that the second amended complaint was not operative on the date of removal, there are no federal claims in the complaint. The court therefore concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction cannot be established by federal claims pleaded in a counterclaim.

AROOSTOOK COUNTY FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN v. MARRETT · filed 2023-04-10

The federal claims pleaded in the Marretts’ counterclaim cannot establish federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides no basis for original jurisdiction after all federal claims have been dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Hilson v. Waukee Community School District · filed 2023-04-17

Because Hilson has failed to state a federal claim, there remains no basis for original jurisdiction under § 1331.

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

McDonald v. Cannon · filed 2023-05-08

The court does not have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as Plaintiff has identified no federal claims in her complaint.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff’s complaint expressly pleads federal claims.

Franke v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co. · filed 2023-05-12

Because Plaintiffs’ complaint expressly pleads federal claims and thus federal question jurisdiction exists, this Court affirms the district court’s ruling denying Plaintiffs’ request to remand.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a proposed federal claim appears only in a pending motion to amend and no complaint asserts it.

Parker v. Ferguson · filed 2023-06-02

But the motion to amend cannot create a federal claim. A federal claim is asserted in an action only by way of a complaint.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a constitutional claim is pleaded only as an alternative to a state-law claim and the state-law claim raises no essential federal issue.

Ralston Outdoor Advertising Ltd v. City of Dallas · filed 2023-07-26

Because constitutional claims pled in the alternative to pure state law claims cannot establish federal question jurisdiction, and Ralston’s petition for writ of certiorari to the Board does not implicate an issue of federal law, the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Ralston’s suit.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim after all federal claims have been dismissed.

M.P.G. v. Antioch Unified School District · filed 2023-10-04

In his complaint, M.P.G. avers that the Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. First Am. Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 22. However, all claims based on federal question jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts a colorable, nonfrivolous claim under federal law.

Tolentino v. Saito · filed 2023-10-26

The allegations of the Complaint, as discussed further below, establish federal question jurisdiction. ... A colorable, nonfrivolous claim to enforce terms of a “plan” supports an exercise of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a removed action whose complaint alleges no federal claims.

Davidson v. Kay's Cafe, Inc. · filed 2023-10-31

The notice of removal identified federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as the sole basis for federal jurisdiction. Because the complaint alleges no federal claims, the Court ordered Defendants to show cause why the case should not be remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. ... Because Defendant Shin has not shown any basis for this Court to exercise jurisdiction, the action was improperly removed and must be remanded.

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

Middleton v. Brown · filed 2023-11-01

Because Plaintiff’s federal claims are “patently meritless,” this case must be dismissed for lack of federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides subject matter jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law; a complaint raising no federal claim cannot invoke it.

Proctor v. Bank of America · filed 2024-01-02

Because the complaint raises no federal claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1332 provides the only possible basis for subject matter jurisdiction over Ms. Proctor’s state law wrongful foreclosure claim. ... 28 U.S.C. § 1331 confers subject matter jurisdiction to the district court “of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

Section 1331 gives federal district courts original jurisdiction when the plaintiff’s complaint asserts claims based on federal law.

Griffin, Jessica v. Imperial Industries, Inc. · filed 2024-04-10

First, plaintiff’s complaint expressly states that it is based on three federal and one state statute, see Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009) (complaint raises federal question “when the plaintiff's statement of [her] own cause of action shows that it is based upon federal law.”), and federal district courts have original jurisdiction of civil actions arising under federal law, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts claims under Title VII or the ADA.

Okeowo v. The Children's Guild · filed 2024-04-12

The action seeks relief for alleged violations of Title VII and the ADA – counts arising under federal law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiffs bring no federal claims.

Skinner v. Reed · filed 2024-04-16

There is no federal question jurisdiction because Plaintiffs bring no federal claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and there is no diversity of citizenship jurisdiction because all Plaintiffs and Defendants are Delaware citizens, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff brings no federal claims.

Lewis v. Best Night Inn · filed 2024-04-24

There is not federal question jurisdiction because Plaintiff brings no federal claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and there is not diversity of citizenship jurisdiction because both Plaintiff and Defendant are Delaware citizens, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint brings no federal claims.

Lewis v. Superlodge Motel · filed 2024-04-24

There is not federal question jurisdiction because Plaintiff brings no federal claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and there is not diversity of citizenship jurisdiction because both Plaintiff and Defendant are Delaware citizens, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff brings no federal claims.

Chrustowski v. Christian Life Center · filed 2024-05-28

There is not federal question jurisdiction because Plaintiff brings no federal claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and there is not diversity of citizenship jurisdiction because both Plaintiff and one of the Defendants are Delaware citizens, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction over a colorable APA claim alleging unreasonably delayed agency action.

Kayihura v. Garland · filed 2024-06-06

“But the APA, in conjunction with this Court’s federal-question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, may vest the Court with jurisdiction” over a case like this one. ... Kayihura has therefore pleaded a colorable APA claim, refuting respondents’ jurisdictional challenge to this claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state action that involves no federal claims.

Wynn v. Harris · filed 2024-09-12

The state action does not involve any federal claims, so federal question jurisdiction does not exist, and neither does there appear to be complete diversity between the parties to the state court action, so diversity jurisdiction likewise does not exist.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the pleaded federal causes of action are patently deficient.

NELSON v. CLAUSSEN · filed 2024-09-20

The inability to plead a federal cause of action renders fatal this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, as both the RICO Act related claims and the Fair Housing Act claim are patently deficient. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff brings no federal claims.

Newman v. Wilmington Alliance · filed 2024-10-03

There is no federal question jurisdiction because Plaintiff brings no federal claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and there is no diversity of citizenship jurisdiction because both Plaintiff and Defendant are Delaware citizens, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over nonfrivolous claims arising under federal law.

Canaii, Jr. v. Government of the Virgin Islands , Albert Bryan · filed 2024-10-04

Plaintiff has alleged “nonfrivolous” discrimination claims under Title VII and the ADA, as well as a related federal regulation. Bizzarro, 804 F. App'x at 190. As such, the Court has federal question jurisdiction over these claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction when the asserted federal claim is patently meritless.

Johnson v. Wendys Co · filed 2024-10-07

Although Johnson alleges a § 1983 claim against Wendys, that claim does not confer federal question jurisdiction because it is patently meritless.

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

Robert v. Syracuse Police Department · filed 2024-10-07

District courts have federal question jurisdiction over “civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Thus, Johnson’s asserted claim for federal question jurisdiction is patently meritless.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges no federal claim or violation of federal law.

(PS) Biggins v. Winn Companies LLC · filed 2024-10-18

Plaintiff asserts federal question jurisdiction, but she does not bring any federal claims. There cannot be federal question jurisdiction unless there is an allegation that a federal law was violated.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over a standalone cause of action under federal law.

Whittman v. MGM National Harbor LLC · filed 2024-10-28

It is a standalone cause of action under federal law. The Title II claim raises a federal question and forms another basis for the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint brings no federal claims.

DOE v. HOSBACH · filed 2024-12-17

Plaintiff does not bring any federal claims that might give this Court subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives a federal court jurisdiction over claims asserted under federal statutes even when the complaint fails to plead enough facts to state those claims.

Shing v. Howard County, MD Department of Assessments and Taxation · filed 2025-01-16

Plaintiff asserts claims under two federal statutes, which this Court finds sufficient to bring her claims within this Court’s federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The fact that she has not adequately pled facts to state either claim calls for resolution under Rule 12(b)(6), not Rule 12(b)(1).

Section 1331 jurisdiction ends when an amended complaint withdraws the sole federal claim and leaves only state-law claims.

Trionfi v. County of San Bernardino · filed 2025-01-28

In addition, the FAC removes the sole federal claim that conferred the Court with federal question jurisdiction. Therefore, as the Supreme Court recently held, remand is mandated.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over colorable claims alleging violations of federal law.

Yamamoto v. Office of Inspector General · filed 2025-02-10

So Yamamoto pleads colorable claims of violations of federal law, and this court has federal question jurisdiction over Yamamoto’s federal law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 permits dismissal of a federal-question claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction only when the claim is not colorable.

Noakes v. Department of Homeland Security · filed 2025-03-12

Federal question claims can be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (rather than failure to state a claim) only when the claim is not even “colorable,” i.e., it is wholly insubstantial and frivolous or is immaterial and made solely for purposes of obtaining jurisdiction.

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction when a federal claim is not wholly insubstantial and frivolous, even if the claim later fails on the merits.

Americas Choice Veterans Construction Inc. v. City of New York · filed 2025-05-01

Federal jurisdiction exists here. The plaintiffs’ federal claims are not so wholly insubstantial and frivolous that they do not give rise to federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction for a private citizen’s claim under a federal criminal statute that affords no private right of action.

Boyarkin v. Skorev · filed 2025-05-02

Accordingly, any purported violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201 raised by a private citizen cannot properly establish a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over a complaint asserting an ADA claim, even when the plaintiff prefers state court.

Lewis v. Didlake, Inc. · filed 2025-05-14

Pursuant to § 1331, federal district courts have “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” ... Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges wrongful termination, discrimination based on disability, and failure to accommodate under the ADA, a federal statute. His desire to proceed in state court is not a proper basis to remand a properly-removed action. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to remand will be denied.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction when the complaint presents a colorable federal claim, even if the plaintiff emphasizes state law claims.

McNeal v. United Food and Commercial Workers · filed 2025-06-02

The Court finds that it has federal question jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Contrary to McNeal’s argument, however, McNeal’s “own allegations and claims” control, see Royal Canin, 604 U.S. at 26, and clearly present a “colorable” or “arguable” Title VII claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint makes no federal claims.

Espinoza v. Warner Music Group Corp. · filed 2025-06-23

Although Plaintiffs cite the federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, they make no federal claims.

Section 1331 gives a federal court jurisdiction when the complaint, read with the plaintiff’s clarification, seeks relief under federal law.

Keene v. Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC · filed 2025-08-11

In retaining jurisdiction of this matter, the Court construed Plaintiff’s Complaint as asserting claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Plaintiff’s Complaint is not a model of clarity, but in filings made in response to Comcast’s motion to compel arbitration, as well as later filings, Plaintiff appears to cite violations of the ADA as the grounds for this suit. During the telephonic hearing, Plaintiff confirmed that her disability discrimination claims are based on alleged violations of the ADA. At no point has Plaintiff disclaimed or denied seeking relief under federal law. Accordingly, this Court finds that it has federal question jurisdiction of the case.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a federal claim whose theory is not wholly insubstantial and frivolous, even if the claim may fail on the merits.

Taylor v. Caplan · filed 2025-09-22

While the facts pleaded may show that the private individuals involved were not acting under color of law, the suggestion that they were acting under color of law is not wholly insubstantial and frivolous. ... Therefore, the Court concludes that it has subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ § 1983 and § 1985 claims.

Section 1331 jurisdiction ends when an amended complaint removes all federal claims.

Joslin · filed 2025-10-02

“[His] deletion of all federal claims deprived [this court] of federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives a federal court original jurisdiction when the complaint asserts claims arising under federal law.

Angelone · filed 2025-11-25

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, a federal court has original jurisdiction. ... As such, Plaintiff alleges federal claims, therefore, this Court has jurisdiction and Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s Removal is moot.

Section 1331 gives district courts subject-matter jurisdiction over a claim arising under the FLSA even when defects in the claim’s pleading are not jurisdictional.

Smith v. BloomTV LLC, Monica Manley, and Devon Kerns · filed 2025-12-01

With regard to subject-matter jurisdiction, this court has grappled with the question of whether the defects in Ms. Smith’s pleading, identified below, are of a jurisdictional nature. Ultimately, as further explained below, the court follows what it discerns to be the majority view and concludes they are not. Accordingly, the court looks to Ms. Smith’s assertion that the court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides that the “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States” because she brings a claim under the FLSA, a federal statute. ECF No. 1 ¶ 6. The court agrees that it has subject-matter jurisdiction over a claim arising under federal law and therefore proceeds to the question of whether it likewise has personal jurisdiction over BloomTV.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction when a complaint seeks relief under federal law.

Murphy v. Brixworth Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. · filed 2025-12-02

The district court correctly heard Murphy’s lawsuit because his complaint included claims under federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff withdraws the federal claim and proceeds only under state law.

Coleman · filed 2025-12-17

Therefore, since there is no federal claim remaining in this matter, and noting no objection by Defendant, the Court no longer has subject matter jurisdiction over this case making remand necessary.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction after the plaintiff withdraws all federal claims and pursues only state-law claims.

RHODES · filed 2026-01-12

Rhodes has voluntarily withdrawn all of his federal claims against the City, so the Court no longer has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action.

A colorable constitutional claim under § 1983 satisfies § 1331’s federal-question jurisdiction requirement.

Luecke v. Casey · filed 2026-01-13

Thus, plaintiffs meet the criteria for federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint alleging FDCPA and FCRA claims; state-law claims absent from the complaint do not require remand.

Osuolale · filed 2026-02-02

A review of the Complaint, however, does not reveal any such allegations. The only allegations in the Complaint are those relating to the FDCPA and FCRA. As such, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand will be denied.

Section 1331 does not sustain jurisdiction when the complaint states no viable federal claim.

Burks · filed 2026-02-27

As explained above, plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint fails to state any federal causes of action. Thus, the court cannot maintain jurisdiction over this case under Section 1331 of Title 28 of the United States Code.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the federal claims are so devoid of merit that they present no federal controversy.

Richardson-Edmonds · filed 2026-03-04

Additionally, the Court finds that as Counts VII and VIII are devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy, and now dismissed, the Court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over this case.

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

Amber Ibhri El Bey Johnson v. Troy's Towing · filed 2026-03-04

Here, the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction because El Bey Johnson brought no federal claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over claims that are too implausible and devoid of merit to present a federal controversy.

Weise · filed 2026-06-23

His allegations of conspiracy or common enterprise are too implausible and devoid of merit to confer jurisdiction over these claims.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint expressly asserts federal claims.

Johnson v. Bow Wave LLC · filed 2026-06-04

Because Johnson’s Complaint expressly asserts federal claims, the Court denies his bid to remand.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a colorable claim even if the claim may ultimately fail; a wholly frivolous claim does not qualify.

Baca v. Colo. Dep't of State · filed 2019-08-20

But, unlike the dissent, we conclude the § 1983 claim here was not so wholly frivolous as to preclude the district court's exercise of federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts a right allegedly created by a federal statute.

Soft Drink Industry Local Union No. 744 Pension Fund v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. · filed 1988-01-15

A claim asserting a right allegedly created by a federal statute presents a federal question. ... As the complaint purports to assert a right under ERISA, we have subject matter jurisdiction over this case. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a nonfrivolous federal claim even if the plaintiff may fail to prove an element of that claim.

Johnson v. Apna Ghar, Inc. · filed 2003-07-21

Because Johnson’s claim arises under the laws of the United States and is neither “immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction” nor “wholly insubstantial and frivolous,” Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. at 682-83, 66 S.Ct. 773, the district court has federal-question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) was therefore erroneous.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges a claim under local law rather than federal law.

Sadat v. Stuart Allan & Associates · filed 2016-10-31

Therefore, the record does not support Defendant’s assertion that Plaintiff’s complaint contains federal claims, and consequently, this court does not have federal question jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 gives district courts subject matter jurisdiction over an action whose complaint asserts federal claims.

Wolfstein v. Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP · filed 2017-06-26

The district court properly denied Wolfstein’s motion to remand his action to state court because the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and the action was properly removed under 28 U.S.C. § 1441.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a colorable federal claim even if the claim ultimately fails on the merits.

Brooks-McCollum v. Aspen Property Management Company · filed 2014-01-08

Although Plaintiffs have alleged violations of federal statutes, a federal court may dismiss claims invoking federal question jurisdiction for want of subject matter jurisdiction if the claims are not “colorable,” such as claims that are “wholly insubstantial and frivolous.”

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction when a complaint contains a claim for relief resting on a federal right, even if it also invokes state law.

Rice v. United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives · filed 2022-02-17

Therefore, the Court has original jurisdiction in this case because Plaintiff's Petition plainly contains a claim for relief that rests upon a federal right.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over nonfrivolous claims arising under federal law.

Sanchez v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company · filed 2023-03-21

As claims based on federal law, Sanchez’s RICO claims fall squarely within the Court’s original federal question jurisdiction. The RICO claims are not devoid of merit or frivolous.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a complaint alleging federal constitutional or statutory claims, even when state courts may also hear those claims.

Winnie v. Sinagra · filed 2024-10-21

On its face, Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts claims arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States. ... The Court thus has federal question jurisdiction over this removed action pursuant to Section 1331.

Section 1331 gives a district court original federal-question jurisdiction over a Truth in Lending Act claim.

Alexander by Alexander v. Goldome Credit Corp. · filed 1991-07-10

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Court would have original federal question jurisdiction over the Truth in Lending Act claim, and could exercise pendent claim jurisdiction over the two state claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because all the claims derive from a common nucleus of operative fact and are such that a plaintiff ordinarily would be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over suits seeking compliance with, or remedies for violations of, federal water quality statutes and regulations.

United States v. Alisal · filed 2005-12-13

As a general matter, federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over civil actions “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. By this principle, suits seeking compliance with, or remedies for, violations of federal water quality stat- utes and regulations present federal questions.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over an action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from state regulation on the ground that federal law preempts that regulation.

Alltel Tennessee, Inc. v. Tennessee Public Service Commission · filed 1990-09-10

The question of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1331 and 1337 is no longer at issue as a result of our decision reversing the district court in Federal Express. At issue in Federal Express was the identical question that is raised here--whether a federal court has subject matter jurisdiction when a party seeks declaratory and injunctive relief from state regulation on the ground that such regulation is preempted by a federal statute. ... Thus, it is established that subject matter jurisdiction in this case exists under 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1331 and 1337.

Section 1331 and ERISA's specific jurisdictional provision give district courts jurisdiction over ERISA severance-benefit claims, while related state-law benefit claims may proceed under pendent jurisdiction.

Hamilton v. Air Jamaica, Ltd. · filed 1990-11-02

This court’s jurisdiction over the plaintiffs severance-pay claim is predicated upon 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which gives this court the authority to hear claims based on federal law, and 29 U.S.C. § 1132(f), which gives this court specific power to hear claims brought by plan participants under ERISA. Jurisdiction over plaintiffs vacation-pay action is based on this court’s inherent jurisdiction over pendent state-law claims.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction over a Clean Air Act enforcement action because a violation of that federal statute raises a federal question.

United States v. MPM Contractors, Inc. · filed 1991-04-18

In addition, the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because MPM’s violation of the Clean Air Act raises a federal question.

Section 1331 has the same jurisdictional burden as § 1350 when an alien brings a claim for a tort only under the ATCA.

Sarei v. Tinto · filed 2007-04-12

Consequently, although prior to Sosa some courts required "a more searching preliminary review of the merits" before ATCA jurisdiction attached, see Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876, 887-88 (2d Cir.1980), we believe the better view after Sosa is that at least where a case is brought by an alien for a "tort only," the jurisdictional burden under § 1350 and § 1331 is the same.

Surviving federal RICO claims invoke Section 1331 jurisdiction.

Developer's Mortgage Co. v. TransOhio Savings Bank · filed 1989-02-14

Given this Court’s rejection of the defendant’s argument for dismissal of the RICO counts, some claims remain in the Complaint which allow the plaintiff to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1982).

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over an interpleader action when distribution of the fund depends on federal law.

Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Moorhead · filed 1989-12-08

Jurisdiction is allegedly based upon diversity of citizenship but it is obvious that the court also has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, since the distribution of the fund is dependent upon federal statute.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a private damages action under Section 303 of the Labor Management Relations Act for harm caused by a union's unfair labor practices.

Suffolk Construction Co. v. Local 67, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners · filed 1990-03-26

Section 303 of the Labor Management Relations Act creates a private right of action against any labor organization for damages caused by its unfair labor practices, defined in Section 8(b) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. § 158(b). This court has jurisdiction to entertain such an action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 supplies no federal-question jurisdiction over state tort claims against a railroad coemployee because the FELA imposes liability on the railroad, not on the individual coemployee.

Lee v. Transportation Communications Union · filed 1990-04-10

Accordingly, Paz is not a proper party defendant under the FELA, and the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted against Paz on the basis of a federal question.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over an action arising directly under a federal statutory compensation plan to enforce the consequences of a final administrative benefits order.

Ceres Gulf v. Cooper · filed 1990-12-11

This court has jurisdiction because this is a federal question, arising directly under a federal statutory compensation plan. 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 33 U.S.C. § 921(d).