28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331(a) gives federal courts jurisdiction over an action that requires interpretation of a federal statute because it arises under the laws of the United States.

Franks v. Nimmo · filed 1981-08-18(a)

The present case centers around the interpretation of 38 U.S.C. § 4106(b) and therefore arises under the laws of the United States.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over challenges to visa denials under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Abourezk v. Reagan · filed 1986-03-11

The district court had subject matter competence in this case under both its general federal question jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1982), and its specific jurisdiction over claims arising under the Immigration and Nationality Act, see 8 U.S.C. § 1329 (1982).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law insurance claims merely because an earned income tax credit helped pay for the insurance.

Brown v. Commonwealth Nat. Life Ins. Co., Inc. · filed 1995-02-07

As to the contention by the defendant that the method of payment used by plaintiffs to finance the purchase of the insurance plan brings this case under the jurisdiction of the federal courts, the court finds the argument to be without merit. The program that was instituted by Congress simply allowed for an earned income credit that could be used to purchase health care.

Section 1331 gives federal courts subject matter jurisdiction when a complaint alleges violations of federal law.

Blizzard v. Dalton · filed 1995-02-14

A federal court has “federal question” subject matter jurisdiction when the civil action “arisLes] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Plaintiff, in alleging violations of federal law, has properly demonstrated federal question subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges a violation of equal protection rights and a claim under a federal statute.

Juanita D. Carter, Attorney in Fact for Geneva Carter, 1 v. St. Louis Airport Officials Tom Kretzschmar Donald W. Bennet · filed 1995-03-27

Carter's complaint alleged a violation of her equal protection rights and also alleged that she proceeded pursuant to a specific federal statute. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam) (pro se complaints entitled to liberal construction). Accordingly, the district court had federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331, and Carter's complaint should be reinstated so that her action may proceed.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a removed case merely because the removing party asserts an unfounded federal basis for jurisdiction.

Marion v. Virginia Electric & Power Company · filed 1995-04-20

Merely making a claim of federal question jurisdiction to support removal from a state court is not sufficient to give jurisdiction to the district court when the removal is unfounded as here.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over actions arising under the Federal Credit Union Act.

Community First Bank v. The National Credit Union Administration · filed 1995-05-08

The district court properly exercised jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 as this action arose under the Federal Credit Union Act, 12 U.S.C. Sec. 1751, et seq.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of a well-pleaded complaint; a Federal Crop Insurance Act defense does not create federal-question jurisdiction because the Act does not completely preempt state law.

Hyzer v. Cigna Property Casualty Insurance · filed 1995-05-11

The remaining basis for jurisdiction is federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Federal question jurisdiction is determined by reference to the well-pleaded complaint rule “which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiffs properly pleaded complaint.” ... The court finds, as did the Ninth Circuit, that the FCIA does not “so completely preempt” state law such that a defense based on the FCIA gives rise to federal question jurisdiction via super pre-emption.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over an action arising under the Interstate Commerce Act.

Jones Truck Lines, Inc. v. Price Rubber Corp. · filed 1995-06-02

Defendant removed the action to this court pursuant to the court’s federal question jurisdiction as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The court finds that jurisdiction is proper as this ease arises under the laws of the United States, specifically the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. § 10101 et seq.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over complaints based on interpreting a federal statute.

Ogilvie v. State Board of Equalization · filed 1995-06-09

First, this court has jurisdiction because the plaintiffs complaints are based on the interpretation of a federal statute; namely, 49 U.S.C. § 11503. The court, therefore, has “federal question” jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims based on a federal preemption defense when the federal statute does not completely preempt those claims and the complaint presents no federal question on its face.

McCrae v. Commercial Credit Corp. · filed 1995-07-03

Because the complete preemption doctrine does not convert the plaintiffs’ state claims into claims under the TILA and because a defendant may not remove a case based upon a federal preemption defense, the court finds the defendants have failed to establish that the complaint on its face pleads a federal question. In other words, the court does not have original jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 does not give federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law commercial dispute merely because the Edge Act deems the suit to arise under federal law.

A.I. Trade Finance, Inc. v. Petra International Banking Corporation · filed 1995-08-22

Therefore, we cannot accept AITF’s argument that the deeming clause of § 632 brings this dispute within the federal question jurisdiction conferred by § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a federal securities fraud claim even if the securities transaction is exempt from registration requirements.

Marks v. CDW Computer Centers, Inc. · filed 1995-09-22

Even assuming arguendo that the plaintiffs sale of CDW stock back to the defendant constitutes a private placement covered by one of the exemptions under the 1933 Act, this case arises under the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws. Since the plaintiff raises a federal question, we have federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiffs allege no facts giving rise to a federal question.

Robert L. Stevens and Richard Todd v. John G. Mooney, Esq. And John G. Mooney, P.C., Jointly and Severally · filed 1995-10-24

The plaintiffs have not alleged any facts giving rise to federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331, and the parties are all from the State of Michigan, hence diversity jurisdiction does not exist under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332.

Section 1331 requires the plaintiff’s claim to arise under federal law; defendants’ claims in a removal petition do not supply federal-question jurisdiction.

Village of Millbrook v. Forrest · filed 1995-11-03

Defendants’ claims do not provide a basis for federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. To invoke federal question jurisdiction, the plaintiff’s claim(s) must arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

Section 1331 gives federal district courts original jurisdiction over an action whose amended complaint alleges a RICO claim arising under federal law.

Phillip M. Kabealo, and Charles L. Kabealo v. Michael Davis, C/o Society Bank, Christopher L. White and Donald F. Mooreh · filed 1995-12-01

In the present case, the district court would have had original jurisdiction over the action under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 because the amended complaint included a claim arising under the laws of the United States, alleging a RICO violation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962. Because the district court had jurisdiction over this federal cause of action, the denial of the motion to remand is affirmed.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when a federal question appears on the face of the complaint or federal law completely preempts the state-law claim.

Moll v. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers · filed 1996-01-23

Without a federal question on the face of plaintiffs complaint or complete preemption of state law, this Court has no subject matter jurisdiction to entertain this matter.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction on removal when a federal question appears on the face of the complaint or complete federal preemption makes a state claim a federal one.

Umphrey v. Fina Oil & Chemical Co. · filed 1996-03-22

A federal question must appear on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint for this court to entertain proper removal jurisdiction. ... One exception to this general rule applies to areas of federal law that completely preempt state law, such as controversies involving an interpretation of § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). ... As no interpretation of any provision of the collective bargaining agreement is required in order to resolve the § 451 claim, the Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is Granted.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when neither complete preemption nor artful pleading applies.

Foxworth v. Trustmark National Bank · filed 1996-03-26

Thus, this court is not inclined to adopt defendant’s “complete preemption” and “artful pleading” arguments. Accordingly, this court fails to find federal subject matter jurisdiction here.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a state-law claim implicates a federal TRO; jurisdiction exists when the claim requires interpreting a collective bargaining agreement.

Hayduk v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · filed 1996-04-25

This Court believes that, although violation of a federally-issued TRO does not automatically confer federal question jurisdiction, in this case, this TRO’s close connection with an applicable CBA does confer such jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide subject matter jurisdiction when a complaint fails to state a valid federal constitutional claim under Section 1983.

Rawls v. Sundquist · filed 1996-05-23

Because the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ Complaint does not state a valid claim for violation of constitutional rights under Section 1983, the ease is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a federal statutory claim even if the plaintiff ultimately fails to prove the defendant is bound by that statute.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. The Chicago Club · filed 1996-06-06

It suggests that a plaintiff must prove, as a matter of jurisdiction under § 1331, that the defendant is in fact bound by the federal law asserted as a basis for the requested relief. This construction of § 1331 conflates the “arising under” and “civil action” prerequisites into a rule that would divest a district court of jurisdiction if a plaintiff were unsuccessful in proving its case.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction when federal law creates the cause of action or a substantial federal question must be resolved to decide the dispute.

Ashmus v. Calderon · filed 1996-06-14

The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Section 1331 confers jurisdiction upon the Court over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” A lawsuit “arises under” federal law if (1) federal law creates the cause of action, or (2) “the resolution of the dispute depends upon the validity, construction, or effect of federal law, so long as the federal question is a real and substantial issue.”

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction to decide whether a federal magistrate judge exceeded the bounds of authority set by federal statute.

Hameli v. Nazario · filed 1996-06-26

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this court has original jurisdiction over cases arising under “the Constitution, law or treaties of the United States.” The scope of a federal magistrate judge’s jurisdiction is controlled by federal statute. Thus, the question of whether the magistrate judge’s role in plaintiff’s termination hearing exceeded the bounds of her authority is in and of itself a federal question covered by § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a complaint seeking relief under a federal statute, and a plaintiff’s disrespectful affidavit does not divest that jurisdiction.

Manes v. City of Shavano · filed 1996-07-25

Manes’ district court pleadings are drawn to seek recovery under § 1983, which prohibits the deprivation of Constitutional rights by persons acting under color of any state law. Manes’ affidavit did not divest the district court of jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal jurisdiction over claims that state no federal claim.

Marks v. US Social Security · filed 1996-08-06

Finally, with regard to the remaining claims in the complaint, we agree with the district court that they state no federal claim and there- fore, do not confer federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts only state-law claims that do not involve federal law.

Sharrow v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. · filed 1996-09-25

Since none of these claims involve federal law, there is no federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts that a federal statute or constitutional provision affords the plaintiff relief.

People of State of Ill. Ex Rel. Edgar v. Chicago · filed 1996-09-27

However, in order to raise a federal question, the complaint simply must assert that a particular statute or constitutional provision affords the plaintiff relief.

Federal-question jurisdiction exists over claims arising under federal law even when those claims may fail to state a claim for relief.

Psychiatric Institute of Washington, D.C., Inc. v. Johnson · filed 1996-10-28

Whether or not those assertions state claims against Fairfax County upon which relief may be granted, see F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), Ms. Johnson has successfully invoked the subject matter jurisdiction of this Court.

Section 1331 supports federal-question jurisdiction over a removed state-law claim when complete preemption recharacterizes it as a federal claim.

Hanson v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Iowa · filed 1996-11-26

Removal of a state court action based on federal question jurisdiction is proper only if the action asserts a claim “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441. ... The complete preemption doctrine applies to “Count I” of the plaintiffs’ case and recharacterization of the plaintiffs’ state breach of contract claim as federal is appropriate.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over defendants against whom no federal claims are alleged.

Sickinger v. Mega Systems, Inc. · filed 1996-12-04

Since no federal claims are alleged against the individual Defendants, the Court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over them pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint invokes neither a federal statute nor the United States Constitution.

Whitney v. Riccordino Realty, Incorporated · filed 1997-01-17

Whitney's complaint failed to establish that a federal court had jurisdiction over his case. Whitney invoked neither a federal statute nor the United States Constitution in support of his claim, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, nor did he assert that the parties were diverse (as far as the record reveals, they are not).

Section 1331 does not confer district court jurisdiction over a federal cause of action when a specific statute assigns jurisdiction over that action exclusively to state courts.

International Science & Technology Institute, Incorporated v. Inacom Communications, Incorporated · filed 1997-02-11

Accordingly, jurisdiction of the United States district courts over private TCPA actions may not be premised on the general federal-question jurisdiction conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint cannot be construed to raise a federal question.

Piercy v. Bentley · filed 1997-02-18

Plaintiff's complaint cannot otherwise be construed to raise a federal question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives a district court subject matter jurisdiction over a petition arguably arising under federal law, but jurisdiction alone does not empower the court to grant relief.

Bernal v. Helman · filed 1997-02-25

The court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Bernal’s petition arguably arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States. But subject matter jurisdiction does not necessarily empower the court to grant relief.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction only when a federal question appears on the face of the complaint, including when complete preemption converts a state-law claim into a federal claim.

Kemp v. International Business Machines Corporation · filed 1997-04-08

A federal district court has original jurisdiction over diversity cases and cases arising under federal law. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. No diversity exists between the plaintiffs and IBM, so we must decide whether the plaintiffs' case arises under federal law. ... A case does not arise under federal law unless a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's complaint. ... Since the plaintiffs' claims do not fall within § 1132(a), those claims may not be recharacterized as an ERISA claim under that section, and no "complete preemption" exists. For that reason, there is no federal question jurisdiction and this case was improperly removed to federal court.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction when an amended complaint alleges a violation of federal constitutional rights remediable under § 1983.

Lockhart v. Cedar Rapids Community School District · filed 1997-04-25

The amended complaint expressly alleges a violation of specific constitutional rights. Lockhart now asserts that he has been deprived of due process and equal protection in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. Consequently, a remedy for violation of those rights is available pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court therefore concludes that a federal question has been alleged and that jurisdiction exists under § 1331.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when a claim is created by federal law or necessarily requires resolution of a substantial federal question, even if the complaint does not expressly plead a federal cause of action.

Vance Ex Rel. Vance v. W.G. Yates & Sons Construction Co. · filed 1997-06-12

Under the artful pleading doctrine, the plaintiff may not avoid removal by failing to plead the necessary allegations to invoke federal jurisdiction. If the plaintiff’s claim is created by federal law, or if resolution of a substantial question of federal law is essential to the plaintiff’s right to relief, the district court has jurisdiction to hear the case, regardless of whether the complaint alleges a federal cause of action on its face.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal treaty invoked by the defendant only limits damages and does not create an exclusive cause of action.

Air Express International, Inc. v. Aerovias De Mexico S.A. De C.V. · filed 1997-06-30

Therefore, since Plaintiff’s Complaint sounds only in state law, does not raise a federal question and because the Warsaw Convention is not exclusive, Plaintiff’s Complaint does not arise under federal law so as to confer removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over a substantial federal claim even when the plaintiff may fail to prove an element of the underlying cause of action.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School and St. Francis Xavier Church · filed 1997-07-18

The question whether the School and the Church have enough employees to be covered under the ADA does not affect the jurisdiction of the district court. Because the 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,” ... the district court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over claims arising under the Constitution and claims requiring interpretation of federal law.

American Automobile Manufacturers Ass'n v. Cahill · filed 1997-08-05

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.” ... Counts Five and Six of the complaint seek relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and allege that the actions of the defendants violate the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the Commerce Clause. Furthermore, this action involves a novel question of federal law since the Court must interpret various sections of the Clean Air Act. Therefore, jurisdiction exists and the Court will now turn to the merits.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction for removal merely because a defendant raises FIFRA preemption as a defense.

Thigpen v. Cheminova, Inc. · filed 1997-08-28

The mere fact that the defendants raise federal preemption under FIFRA as an affirmative defense does not, standing alone, trigger federal question jurisdiction for purposes of removal.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction based on an ordinary preemption defense, but complete preemption can make a state-law claim arise under federal law.

Plumbing Industry Board v. E.W. Howell Co. · filed 1997-09-15

Ordinarily, a claim of preemption is a defense to be raised in the defendant's answer, and thus cannot support jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because it would not appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint. See Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 154, 29 S.Ct. 42, 44, 53 L.Ed. 126 (1908); Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63, 107 S.Ct. 1542, 1546, 95 L.Ed.2d 55 (1987). Nonetheless, when Congress mandates "complete preemption" in a specific area of the law, any civil complaint raising a state law claim in that area is of necessity so federal in character that it arises under federal law for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and permits removal to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over an action plausibly alleging a violation of the Fair Credit Billing Act.

Karpinski v. CFX Mortgage · filed 1997-10-20

This is, therefore, an action arising under the laws of the United States, and this court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives a district court federal-question jurisdiction when a case necessarily turns on construing federal law.

Floyd v. District of Columbia · filed 1997-11-07

The district court also had federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. s 1331 because the case " 'necessarily turn[s] on some construction of federal law.' " Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 808 (1986) (quoting Fran- chise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 9 (1983)); see Diven v. Amalgamated Transit Union Int'l and Local 689, 38 F.3d 598, 600 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (unlike the statute in Merrell Dow, where Congress simply fails to include a certain group under a statute it does not constitute an affirmative congressional decision to deny federal jurisdic- tion) (citing Rogers v. Platt, 814 F.2d 683, 688 (D.C. Cir. 1987)).

Section 1331 gives a federal court original jurisdiction when claims under federal statutes present substantial questions of federal law.

DeLeon v. Beneficial Construction Co. · filed 1998-01-16

This court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action because several of the claims present questions of federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331’s general federal-question jurisdiction does not apply when a specific statute assigns jurisdiction elsewhere.

Nicholson v. Hooters of Augusta · filed 1998-03-10

Nevertheless, the general jurisdictional grant of section 1331 does not apply if a specific statute assigns jurisdiction elsewhere.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a claim alleging a constitutional violation even when the claim appears doubtful on the merits.

Cornelisen v. Gunnarson · filed 1998-03-13

Although plaintiff has not adequately alleged federal jurisdiction in her complaint by formal pleading standards, she does clearly state that the claim she is asserting is based on an alleged violation of the Constitution— First Amendment. Despite the court’s doubts regarding the viability of her claims, the case does appear to arise under the Constitution and/or federal law.

Section 1331’s general grant of federal-question jurisdiction does not cover private actions under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3) because Congress foreclosed federal jurisdiction over those actions.

Murphey v. Lanier · filed 1998-03-30

Though § 1331 serves as a general grant of subject matter jurisdiction to the district courts over suits “arising under” federal law, this general grant may be circumscribed by other specific acts of Congress. ... Based on the text of § 227(b)(3) itself, other subsections of § 227, and other provisions of the Communications Act within which § 227 is codified, the Court concludes that Congress’s intent was to foreclose federal question jurisdiction over private actions brought under § 227.

Section 1331 does not extend federal-question jurisdiction to state-law claims joined with federal claims.

Axel Johnson, Incorporated v. Carroll Carolina Oil Company, Incorporated · filed 1998-06-04

It is undisputed--and, of course, indisputable--that neither 42 U.S.C. § 9613(b) nor 28 U.S.C. § 1331 extends federal jurisdiction to state-law claims.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint asserting § 1983 claims for alleged violations of federal constitutional rights.

Williams v. Ragnone · filed 1998-06-12

We find that Williams's complaint raises a federal question because it asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of federal constitutional rights.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over a challenge to state regulation alleged to be preempted by federal telecommunications law.

MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Commonwealth of Virginia State Corp. Commission · filed 1998-06-15

Likewise the defendants’ argument that the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction over this case because it arises solely under Virginia law is without merit. MCI’s action arises under the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, U.S. Const, art. VI, § 2, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no violation of federal rights or statutes.

Salter v. Mellon Mortgage Company, a Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Mellon National Bank, and Cook County Sheriff's D · filed 1998-08-12

Salter's complaint alleges federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. However, the complaint alleges no violations of any federal fights or statutes, and thus there is no federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 reaches a state-law claim when complete preemption recharacterizes it as arising under federal law; ordinary preemption alone does not create federal-question jurisdiction.

McClelland v. Gronwaldt · filed 1998-09-09

In contrast to ordinary preemption, complete preemption not only displaces substantive state law, but also "recharacterizes" preempted state law claims as "arising under" federal law for the purposes of determining federal question jurisdiction, 28 typically making removal available to the defendant. Thus, "complete preemption" is less a principle of substantive preemption than it is a rule of federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question grounded in federal law or the Constitution to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Stouffer v. Stifel, Nicolaus · filed 1998-10-15

Plaintiff also claims federal question jurisdiction. Again, neither the complaint nor any other part of the record identifies any federal question. Plaintiff has identified no laws of the United States of which defendant is in violation, nor has he cited Constitutional origin for this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction when the plaintiff’s pleadings raise a claim under federal law.

Hernandez v. State Elections Board · filed 1998-12-09

In his motion for summary judgment filed before the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance on November 30, 1998, plaintiff has characterized his allegations so as to raise a claim under the “Constitution, laws and treaties of the United States,” therefore giving rise to federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 jurisdiction is not defeated merely because a defendant allegedly did not act under color of state law for a Section 1983 claim; that objection concerns whether the claim states a basis for relief.

Rene v. NA · filed 1999-01-11

The defendants argue that this Court lacks federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the defendants are not “state actors,” a necessary element of the plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claim. The Court disagrees that this serves as a basis for dismissal under 12(b)(1). The defendants’ argument is relevant only to the plaintiffs’ civil rights claims under Section 1983, and does not address the plaintiffs’ RICO claims, which contain no element of “state action.” In any event, to the extent the defendants contend that they are not amenable to a Section 1983 suit because they did not act under color of state law, such arguments are more appropriately raised in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction where the complaint fails to allege a federal cause of action.

Smith v. William Byrd Press · filed 1999-02-17

Our review of the record dis- closes that Smith failed to allege a federal cause of action and that the district court did not have jurisdiction to consider Smith’s potential state law claims.

Section 1331 gives a federal court jurisdiction when a party claims a right arising under federal law.

Daugherty v. Westminster Schools · filed 1999-04-16

When a party claims a right that arises under the laws of the United States, a federal court has jurisdiction over the controversy.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction can rest on a completely preempted state claim, but an ordinary conflict-preemption defense alone does not establish it.

Copling v. The Container Store, Inc. · filed 1999-05-06

Conflict preemption simply fails to establish federal question jurisdiction. Rather than transmogrifying a state cause of action into a federal one, as occurs with complete preemption, conflict preemption serves as a defense to a state action.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that Congress has completely preempted.

Butero v. Royal Maccabees Life Ins. · filed 1999-05-10

When Congress comprehensively occupies a field of law, “any civil complaint raising this select group of claims is necessarily federal in character” and thus furnishes subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint that asserts no claim under federal law or the Constitution.

Moosavi v. Zook · filed 1999-05-25

Federal trial courts are tribunals of limited jurisdiction dependent upon statutory grants of jurisdiction from the Congress. See In re Bulldog Trucking, Inc., 147 F.3d 347, 352 (4th Cir. 1998). Accord- ingly, a plaintiff must assert jurisdiction either by raising a question based on the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1994), or by claiming jurisdiction based on diver- sity of citizenship, see 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332 (West 1993 & Supp. 1998). ... Moosavi alleged no basis for jurisdiction, and we can find none that supports his claims. Moosavi does not claim that the parties have diversity of citizenship, and the information in the record tends to refute this possibility. Furthermore, Moosavi raises no claims under federal law or the Constitution.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a claim arising under the Constitution even if the claim may fail on the merits.

Clinton v. Babbitt · filed 1999-06-17

The district court determined it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiffs failed to state a federal claim upon which relief could be granted and, thus, did not establish “a cognizable basis independent of [28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 2201] for the exercise of jurisdiction.” We conclude that the district court erred in this determination because federal jurisdiction may lie and “the plaintiff may have a cause of action, even though [the plaintiff is] entitled to no relief at all.”

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States; state-law claims alone do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Vitale v. First Fidelity Leasing Group, Inc. · filed 1999-07-13

Plaintiffs have alleged only state-law claims. They have asserted no claim “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which is required for this Court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a removed state case when a federal question appears on the face of the complaint or federal law completely preempts the state claims.

Donkor v. British Airways, Corp. · filed 1999-08-12

A case brought in state court may be removed by the defendant to federal court if the case originally could have been brought in federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because a federal question was presented on the face of the complaint. ... Furthermore, even if there is no federal cause of action presented on the face of the complaint, a defendant may still remove a cause of action to federal court if the state claims are completely preempted by a federal statute.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over an ordinary medical malpractice claim that establishes no federal claim.

Smith v. Faucheux · filed 1999-09-01

Ms. Smith's attempts to establish some sort of federal question in her brief are devoid of merit; essentially, her claims boil down to a simple medical malpractice case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Because Ms. Smith has established neither diversity of citizenship nor a federal claim, the district court did not err in dismissing the case as to all defendants.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction when a complaint presents a colorable federal claim requiring interpretation of federal statutes.

Schindler v. Finnerty · filed 1999-11-09

These statutes must be reviewed to determine whether the New York State Grievance Committee may investigate grievances submitted by clients of patent attorneys. Accordingly, the plaintiffs have asserted a colorable federal claim arising under federal law, and this Court has original jurisdiction to review the Grievance Committee’s action with regard to Elias’s complaint against Kroll.

Section 1331 gives a federal court jurisdiction over a substantial federal statutory claim even if the claimant may fail on the merits.

Sipes Ex Rel. Slaughter v. Russell · filed 2000-01-12

Plaintiffs assert that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over its RLPHRA claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The Court agrees with the plaintiffs and holds that subject matter jurisdiction exists. ... The probability of plaintiffs’ success on the merits of their RLPHRA claim has no bearing on the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. ... A complaint that appears to state a cause of action under a federal statute should be dismissed only when the claim is clearly immaterial or is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over a civil rights claim even when the plaintiff may have waived the claim.

Wichman v. County of Volusia · filed 2000-01-24

A court is not deprived of subject matter jurisdiction when a party signs a waiver of civil rights claims.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over claims that a state Medicaid plan conflicts with federal Medicaid law.

Johnson v. Guhl · filed 2000-04-07

Here, to determine whether the remedies sought by Plaintiffs are warranted, the Court must apply or interpret provisions of the Medicaid Act. ... Plaintiffs allege that the provisions and application of the New Jersey State Medicaid plan conflict with the Federal Medicaid plan provisions as set forth in § 1396p. ... Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts subject matter jurisdiction over a civil suit alleging a violation of federal law even when an interstate commerce element of the claim is disputed.

United States v. Krilich, Robert R. · filed 2000-04-12

In this case, the interstate connection, i.e. that the waters involved were "waters of the United States," is merely an element of the United States’ Clean Water Act case under section 301; subject matter jurisdiction over this question involving federal law comes from 28 U.S.C. sec. 1331.

Section 1331 requires a claim under a federal constitutional provision or statute, and does not confer district court jurisdiction when Congress places exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute with the Surface Transportation Board.

Flynn v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp.(BNSF) · filed 2000-05-02

When plaintiffs assert federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as the Plaintiffs have in this case, the plaintiffs must identify a federal constitutional provision or statute under which they can raise a claim or the court has no jurisdiction. ... By placing exclusive jurisdiction of railroad transportation under the STB, Congress has abrogated district court jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff’s claims do not arise under federal law.

Arco Environmental Remediation, L.L.C. v. Department Of Health And Environmental Quality Of The State Of Montana · filed 2000-05-24

Because ARCO's claims do not arise under any federal law, this case does not fall within either the federal courts' federal question jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. S 1331, or the federal courts' exclusive original jurisdiction over controversies arising under CERCLA, see 42 U.S.C.S 9613(b).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law tort claims against a former court-appointed attorney merely because the claims arise from alleged ineffective assistance of counsel.

Bustamante v. Moran · filed 2000-06-19

Diversity jurisdiction does not exist because both he and Moran are residents of Texas, and his state-law tort claims do not implicate a federal question.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction only when a federal claim appears on the face of the complaint; a federal defense to a state-law claim does not suffice.

Arrey v. BEAUX ARTS II, LLC · filed 2000-06-21

Section 1331, upon which petitioner relies, confers upon the district courts “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Thus, the state court nonpayment proceeding was removed to this Court properly only if this is an action arising under the Act, the only federal statute upon which petitioner relies. ... An action “arises under” a federal statute only if the plaintiff will prevail on one construction of the statute and fail on another. Moreover, it long has been clear that the basis for federal jurisdiction must appear on the face of the complaint. The assertion of a federal claim by way of defense to a state court action affords no basis for removal.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction over claims alleging violations of the U.S. Constitution or arising under federal law.

Leonard v. DUTCHESS CTY. DEPT. OF HEALTH · filed 2000-07-11

As an initial matter, we hold that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the instant action. Plaintiffs' first claim for relief is based upon alleged violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; plaintiffs' second and fourth claims arise under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and plaintiffs' third claim alleges violations of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Accordingly, this Court has federal question jurisdiction over these claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction only when an action arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Park Place Entertainment Corp. v. Arquette · filed 2000-09-18

For an action to arise under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the action must arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. The Complaint does not assert violations of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim when no Act of Congress is an essential element of that claim.

Four Star Aviation, Inc. v. United States Postal Service · filed 2000-09-21

Federal question jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, also fails because the plaintiff cannot establish that an Act of Congress is an essential element of the claim.

Section 1331 requires a claim created by federal law and gives no jurisdiction over a union’s § 501 claim when § 501 creates no claim for unions.

United Transportation Union v. Bottalico · filed 2000-11-15

The court also lacks subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1333 because both statutes require that federal law create the claim, and for the reasons stated above, § 501 does not create a claim for unions.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction when a case substantially turns on the construction or effect of federal law.

United States v. Power Engineering Co. · filed 2000-11-24

As discussed in detail below, this case involves a “controversy respecting the [ ] construction or effect” of the RCRA “which is determinative of the resulting judgment.” ... Consequently, I have subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law, including actions brought under the APA.

Road Sprinkler Fitters Local Union 669 v. Herman · filed 2000-12-22

Grinnell overlooks 28 U.S.C. s 1331, which gives federal courts what the APA does not: "jurisdic- tion of all civil actions arising under the ... laws ... of the United States," including those brought under the APA.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over fraudulent-transfer claims that raise only questions of state law and no substantial federal question.

Breed Technologies, Inc. v. Allied Signal, Inc. · filed 2001-01-05

Thus, the court concludes that subject matter jurisdiction based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1331 does not exist here because there is no federal question.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction when an action arises under federal laws, including the DDA and PAIMIA.

Wisconsin Coalition for Advocacy, Inc. v. Czaplewski · filed 2001-01-16

Given the foregoing, this court does have jurisdiction to hear this action pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the ... laws ... of the United States”) precisely because this action does arise under the Development Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 6001 and fhe Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental 111-ness Act of 1986, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 10801, et seq.

Section 1331 jurisdiction over an ADA claim is not defeated by an argument that the defendant is not subject to the ADA.

Butler v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n · filed 2001-01-19

The NCAA argues that it is not subject to the ADA and that, therefore, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Butler’s claim. This argument is without merit.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when no federal question is present.

Zubkis v. Shasky · filed 2001-03-22

We conclude that the district court properly found no federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and that plaintiff failed to allege diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction only when the complaint’s facts show that the action arises under federal law; identifying federal statutes without supporting facts is insufficient.

Hines v. Reed · filed 2001-04-02

A federal district court is granted federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This statute gives the district court subject matter jurisdiction to hear “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Plaintiffs facts do not demonstrate that his action arises under federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because federal common law of foreign relations may arise as an issue; the well-pleaded complaint rule applies.

Patrickson v. Dole Food Co. · filed 2001-05-30

What Congress has not done is to extend federal-question jurisdiction to all suits where the federal common law of foreign relations might arise as an issue. We interpret congressional silence outside these specific grants of jurisdiction as an endorsement of the well-pleaded complaint rule.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over state-law claims that are completely preempted by federal law, even when the complaints do not plead a federal claim.

Bell v. Illinois Central Railroad · filed 2001-06-27

However, this court has already determined that it has subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ complaints because their claims are completely preempted by federal law.

Section 1331 does not support federal-question jurisdiction when no federal statutory right is at issue.

Khaimov v. Zeretsky · filed 2001-07-10

After de novo review of the record, we conclude dismissal was proper because no federal statutory right was at issue, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331; none of the named defendants was a state actor within the meaning of § 1983, see Gentry v. City of Lee's Summit, 10 F.3d 1340, 1342 (8th Cir. 1993); and the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over any arguably perceivable state law claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint raises no question of federal or constitutional law.

Dupre v. University Health · filed 2001-08-23

Nor does Dupre raise in her complaint any question of federal or constitutional law. The dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction was thus not error.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the action presents no federal question.

Nickerson v. Conservatorship of Person & Estate of Wiro · filed 2001-09-20

We conclude that the district court properly found no federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, that plaintiff failed to allege diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and that venue was improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when an asserted federal claim is clearly immaterial and made solely to obtain jurisdiction.

Nachbaur v. Weiss · filed 2001-10-01

Claims brought under federal question jurisdiction may be dismissed if it “clearly appears to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction.” Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946).

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when federal-question jurisdiction was not invoked below and the pleaded federal claim was not pursued.

Focus Golf System, Inc. v. Emery · filed 2002-01-02

The parties secondarily assert that the Court has jurisdiction because the RICO claim presented a federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and the other state law claims were appended based on supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367. But federal question jurisdiction was not invoked below, and the RICO claim was not pursued.

Section 1331 gives a court federal-question jurisdiction when a well-pleaded complaint raises a federal issue, regardless of whether the plaintiff can prove the claim on its merits.

Turner Ex Rel. Turner v. Liverpool Central School · filed 2002-02-11

Neither of these arguments is availing because jurisdiction is not dependent on whether Plaintiff can prove the merits of her complaint. Rather, Plaintiff need only state a federal issue in her well-pleaded complaint. ... As stated, in the present case, Plaintiff has alleged a violation of her constitutional rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Therefore, the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides no independent jurisdiction over remaining third-party claims that raise no federal question.

CFSC CONSORTIUM, LLC v. Ferreras-Goitia · filed 2002-03-28

The Court has further failed to detect any independent basis of federal jurisdiction over Defendants’ action, such as federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint itself presents an adequately pleaded claim arising under federal law.

Richard v. Hoechst Celanese Chemical Group, Inc. · filed 2002-03-30

In order to enjoy federal court jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the plaintiffs cause of action must arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. The federal issue must arise in the complaint itself, and not from the plaintiffs anticipation of a defense based on the federal statute. ... Because Plaintiff has adequately pled his RICO claim, the Court finds that Plaintiff has jurisdiction to bring the instant case before it.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when resolving it will not implicate a federal constitutional issue.

M.K. v. Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon · filed 2002-04-18

Federal courts have original federal question jurisdiction in “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441(b). ... In the absence of any constitutional issues, this court lacks jurisdiction over this action and it should be remanded to state court.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when the pleadings raise no constitutional or federal statutory question.

Williams v. Shermeta, Chimko & Kilpatrick · filed 2002-06-12

There is no constitutional or federal statutory question raised in the pleadings.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims whose requested relief necessarily requires a court to judge the validity of federal regulations.

In Re Wireless Telephone Radio Frequency Emissions · filed 2002-06-21

The only way a court can resolve this dispute and possibly grant plaintiffs the remedy they seek is for it to pass judgment on the validity of the federal RF standards. [20] Defendants have the right to have such an evaluation take place in federal court.

Section 1331 supports federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when the requested relief necessarily requires a court to judge the validity of federal regulations.

Pinney v. Nokia · filed 2002-06-21

Thus, a state imposed headset rule necessarily invalidates the national standard. A suit to invalidate a federal regulation as unreasonable arises under federal law.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when a federal claim is not so completely devoid of merit that it fails to present a federal controversy, even if the claim may ultimately fail.

Qwest Corp. v. City of Santa Fe, New Mexico · filed 2002-08-30

Even if there exists an open question as to whether Qwest has a viable federal claim in this action, however, this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction because Qwest’s federal claims are not so completely devoid of merit as to not involve a federal controversy.

Section 1331 supports federal-question jurisdiction after federal defendants are dismissed when a claim under a federal statute remains.

Ridenbaugh v. Long · filed 2002-09-05

But in this case, the federal claim that forms the basis of the Court’s jurisdiction has not been dismissed. ... The Internal Revenue Code is a federal statute. Consequently, this Court retains federal question jurisdiction in this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Thousand Friends of Iowa v. Iowa Department of Transportation · filed 2002-09-20

Rather, NEPA regulates the federal government and/or agency. Accordingly, the Court finds plaintiffs have failed to allege a substantive federal claim that could support this Court’s exercise of federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a suit alleging only unspecified “un-American, illegal and overt acts.”

O'Leary v. City of Highland · filed 2002-09-20

James O’Leary appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action against the City of Highland alleging that the City of Highland engaged in “un-American, illegal and overt acts.” ... The district court properly dismissed O’Leary’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction over O’Leary’s suit cannot be based on complete diversity, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68, 117 S.Ct. 467, 136 L.Ed.2d 437 (1996), or a federal question, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1089-90 (9th Cir. 2002).

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when a claim turns on federal law or the Constitution and is not patently without merit.

Bartolini v. Ashcroft · filed 2002-09-30

The court concludes that subject matter jurisdiction exists based on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 in conjunction with 5 U.S.C. § 555(b). ... Federal question jurisdiction may be exercised over a claim only if (1) the claim turns on an interpretation of the laws or Constitution of the United States and (2) the claim is not patently without merit.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a defendant bank is insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

CANNOM v. Elk Horn Bank and Trust · filed 2002-10-25

The complaint also alleges that federal jurisdiction exists because Defendant Elk Horn Bank is insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. This fact by itself is insufficient to confer federal subject matter jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over an action arising under federal law, including a Section 1983 claim.

Gallo v. Suffolk County Police Department · filed 2002-11-19

In the present case, the Court finds that jurisdiction exists under Section 1331 because the action arises under federal law, namely Section 1983. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is denied.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction when whether an instrument is a security is itself a federal question.

Securities and Exchange Commission v. J.T. Wallenbrock and Associates Larry Toshio Osaki Van Y. Ichscinotsubo Citadel Ca · filed 2002-12-12

Although Wallenbrock frames the issue as one of the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction, because the question of whether “the case involved a security was itself a federal question,” El Khadem v. Equity Sec. Corp., 494 F.2d 1224, 1225 n. 1 (9th Cir.1974), the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide an independent basis to maintain a PMPA action when the PMPA supplies no private remedy for the alleged violation.

Dersch Energies Inc v. Shell Oil Company · filed 2002-12-26

For identical reasons, we reject Dersch’s argument that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides it with an independent jurisdictional basis to maintain an action against the defendants under the PMPA.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges a violation of First Amendment rights.

Green v. America Online (Aol) John Does 1 & 2 · filed 2003-01-16

Green alleged in Count Twelve of his Amended Complaint that AOL’s Community Guidelines abrogate his freedom of speech and violate his First Amendment rights. This is a clear invocation of federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a claim that adequately alleges a violation of a federal requirement governing Virgin Islands property tax assessments.

Bluebeard's Castle, Inc. Castle Acquisitions, Inc. v. Government of the Virgin Islands Roy Martin, in His Official Capac · filed 2003-02-28

Because plaintiffs claims “arise under” § 1401a, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the District Court under 48 U.S.C. § 1612 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts subject-matter jurisdiction over a civil action alleging a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Freeman v. Fallin · filed 2003-03-24

Because the claim “aris[es] under” the Constitution, this court has subject-matter jurisdiction under the federal question statute.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state tort claims merely because the Vaccine Act supplies a federal defense or raises an insufficiently substantial federal issue.

Shadie Ex Rel. Shadie v. Aventis Pasteur, Inc. · filed 2003-03-31

Thus, the plaintiffs’ allegations do not raise a sufficiently substantial question of federal law to create subject matter jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint that lacks facts showing the dispute falls under federal law.

Robinson v. Ohio · filed 2003-05-14

First, the complaint did not raise a federal question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Robinson did not allege that the contract at issue was a federal construction project covered by the Davis-Bacon Act, and there is nothing in the record to indicate that it was.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state consumer-protection claims about wireless billing disclosures when the Federal Communications Act does not completely preempt them and their resolution does not require a substantial federal question.

Russell v. Sprint Corp. · filed 2003-05-22

Based on the intent of Congress, as set forth in the Section 414 savings clause, as well as in Section 332 itself, this Court finds that Sprint has not established that this Court has jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims under the complete preemption doctrine. ... The substantial federal question doctrine does not support removal of plaintiffs claims under the KUTCPA.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a nonfrivolous claim arising under federal law even if the plaintiff may fail to establish a statutory element on the merits.

Johnson, Robert v. Apna Ghar Inc · filed 2003-06-04

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, the district court has federal-question jurisdiction pur- suant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) was therefore erroneous.

Section 1331 requires a factual or legal basis for federal-question jurisdiction to be alleged in the complaint or apparent from the record.

Ignacio v. Discover Private Issue · filed 2003-06-12

Because Ignacio failed to allege any factual or legal basis for federal jurisdiction in his amended complaint, and none is apparent from the record, the district court properly dismissed his action.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over claims concerning the duties, charges, and liabilities of communications carriers for interstate and international services because those claims arise under federal law.

Worldcom Inc v. Graphnet Inc · filed 2003-09-12

Since this controversy involves questions concerning the duties, charges and liabilities with respect to interstate and international communications services, it “arises under” federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to allege facts sufficient to show a federal question for subject matter jurisdiction.

Dilday v. Estate of Hackathorn · filed 2003-09-19

The district court properly dismissed Dilday’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Dilday’s fourth amended complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to show either a federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d 1086, 1089-90 (9th Cir.2002), or diversity, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68, 117 S.Ct. 467, 136 L.Ed.2d 437, (1996).

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims alleged to arise under federal law even if the asserted federal cause of action may ultimately fail.

Empire Kosher Poultry, Inc. v. UNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND · filed 2003-09-26

Section 1331 grants federal courts the power to hear actions “arising under” the laws of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This broad language permits courts to exercise jurisdiction over all claims allegedly based on federal law, despite the possibility that the court may later determine that the asserted right is not cognizable.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint that cannot be construed to raise a federal question.

Moore v. Erickson · filed 2003-10-30

Plaintiffs complaint cannot otherwise be construed to raise a federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an objection to state statutes that does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Salman v. Bond · filed 2003-11-13

Moreover, Appellants’ objection to the Nevada statutes allegedly relied upon by the County Appellees does not involve a federal question or arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to allege facts showing that the claims arise under federal law to invoke federal question jurisdiction.

Gray v. Internal Affairs Bureau · filed 2003-11-18

In order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, the plaintiffs claims must arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Gray has failed to allege facts demonstrating that her claims arise under this Court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an action presenting only state-law issues.

Lucre Management Group, LLC v. Schempp Real Estate, LLC (In Re Schempp Real Estate, LLC) · filed 2003-12-19

Because the Removed Action presents only state law issues, there could be no jurisdiction based upon a federal question.

Section 1331 gives federal courts original jurisdiction over a complaint alleging a § 1983 claim for violation of federal constitutional rights.

McNerny v. Nebraska Public Power District · filed 2004-01-05

I conclude that plaintiffs case is within the court’s original federal question subject matter jurisdiction, the state claims are within the court’s supplemental jurisdiction, and although defendant’s notice of removal does not mention supplemental jurisdiction, this failure cannot divest the court of its properly pleaded original jurisdiction over plaintiffs entire case.

Section 1331 gives federal courts subject matter jurisdiction over an action alleging violations of the Fourteenth Amendment and federal child welfare law.

Office of Child Advocate v. Lindgren · filed 2004-01-08

A federal court has subject matter jurisdiction when a ease arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1980). The present action arose under the Constitution and laws of the United States because Plaintiff alleged violations of both the Fourteenth Amendment and the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a civil action seeking return of property allegedly forfeited without adequate notice in violation of due process.

United States v. Howell, Robert N. · filed 2004-01-13

If as Howell claims the government deprived him of his property without adequate notice and therefore without due process of law, he can seek its return by means of a civil action based on the federal-question jurisdiction of the federal courts, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a removed action when the plaintiff’s complaint on its face asserts a claim under federal law, including Section 1983.

Hom v. Brennan · filed 2004-01-29

Subject matter jurisdiction may be based on a federal question, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or diversity of citizenship. ... In order to determine whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over an action removed from a state court to a federal court, a court is limited to an examination of the allegations on the face of the plaintiffs complaint in the underlying action. ... Thus, because the underlying complaint raises a federal question under Section 1983, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a claim under the Constitution or a federal statute for federal-question jurisdiction.

Titus v. Ewert · filed 2004-02-04

They must therefore allege a claim under the Constitution or a federal statute.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that neither arise under federal law nor are preempted by it.

Bradfisch v. Templeton Funds, Inc. · filed 2004-02-12

28 U.S.C. § 1331 confers original jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States. Defendants have not shown that any claim alleged by Bradfisch arises under the United States Constitution, arises under federal statutes, or is preempted by federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal jurisdiction when a complaint alleges no constitutional violation or other federal question.

Lann v. Maxwell · filed 2004-04-01

Lann’s pleadings and exhibits reveal that his complaint did not allege a constitutional violation or otherwise establish a federal question that would confer federal jurisdiction on the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 covers almost every federal claim, but a claim under federal law does not always confer federal-question jurisdiction.

Steven Leipzig, Cross-Appellee v. Aig Life Insurance Company · filed 2004-04-15

Although today almost every federal claim can be heard in federal court under § 1331, Great-West shows that there are still lacunae.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a litigant alleges that a state court’s rejection of a legal malpractice claim violated constitutional rights.

DeBose v. Lain · filed 2004-04-19

He asserts that the state court’s rejection of his legal malpractice claim violated his constitutional rights. This is an insufficient basis for federal-question jurisdiction and DeBose has suggested no other jurisdictional basis.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over claims arising under federal statutes without an amount-in-controversy minimum.

Kozlowski v. CITY OF DUNKIRK, NEW YORK · filed 2004-04-29

As the FLSA is a federal statute, this court has original jurisdiction over thg claim. There is no jurisdictional requirement in section 1331 that the amount in controversy exceed $75,000. That requirement is found in 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and applies to actions in which jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship.

A specific limitation on federal court jurisdiction overrides § 1331’s general grant of federal-question jurisdiction.

Wade v. Blue · filed 2004-05-26

As we ruled in Inacom Communications, 106 F.3d at 1154-55, a specific limitation on federal court jurisdiction, such as we confront here, over- rides the general grant of federal jurisdiction in § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide subject matter jurisdiction when the complaint raises no federal question.

Abner v. City of Detroit · filed 2004-06-09

Abner failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction of the district court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 or 1332. Abner’s complaint does not raise a federal question under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over an action involving no federal question.

Lowenbraun v. Frentz (In Re Lowenbraun) · filed 2004-07-16

No federal question is involved that would provide jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and jurisdiction would not exist under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 for actions between citizens of different states.

Section 1331 does not supply substantial federal question jurisdiction over state law claims seeking compensatory damages when no available federal remedy provides those damages.

In Re Wireless Telephone Radio Frequency Emissions Products Liability Litigation · filed 2004-07-19

The same argument applies to the Morganroth complaints-because the plaintiffs cannot recover compensatory damages under any available federal remedy, a private federal action does not exist as to their claims, and remand is required under Merrell Dow and Mulcahey.

Section 1331 does not support substantial federal question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when no private federal remedy addresses the federal issue raised by the claim.

Murray v. Motorola, Inc. · filed 2004-07-19

The defendants have not carried their burden of establishing removal jurisdiction under the substantial federal question doctrine, because they have failed to demonstrate the availability of a private federal remedy addressing the federal questions raised in the Morganroth complaints.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state negligence claim that presents no federal question.

Hull v. City of Santa Fe · filed 2004-07-29

With respect to Ms. Hull’s first claim, she has not demonstrated a basis for federal jurisdiction. The parties are not diverse and there is no federal question involved.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over an action seeking only to enforce a state court order when no issue of federal law is raised.

Felder's Auto Body & Frame Shop, Inc. v. Conely · filed 2004-09-17

This is merely an action seeking enforcement of a state court order. There is no federal statute or constitutional principle at stake. Despite Conely’s voluminous pleadings, he has not pointed to a single issue of federal law upon which to base federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted federal habeas action is unavailable.

Hall v. The Beast · filed 2004-09-20

Plaintiffs also claim that this court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. However, plaintiffs brought this case as a habeas action, and since federal habeas is not available in this case, plaintiffs have failed to raise a federal question in this action.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction is not defeated by a challenge to an element of the federal claim; that challenge goes to the merits.

Federal Trade Commission v. Ameridebt, Inc. · filed 2004-09-24

Whether AmeriDebt qualifies as a “corporation” for purposes of the FTC Act, individually or as part of a common enterprise, constitutes one of the elements that the FTC must prove in order to maintain its claim against AmeriDebt. Merits-related challenges such as this go to the sufficiency of the pleadings, not to subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives a federal court jurisdiction over a pleaded FLSA claim under Section 207; whether the plaintiff can prove the claim’s commerce-related elements is a merits question.

Farrell v. Pike · filed 2004-11-16

However, Judge Britt found that by pleading a violation of Section 207, this gave the Court subject matter jurisdiction by virtue of either 28 U.S.C. § 1331 for actions arising under the laws of the United States or 28 U.S.C. § 1337 providing for jurisdiction over acts of Congress which involve regulating commerce. Whether the plaintiff could prove all the elements of the claim, such as the defendant’s gross revenue, was a matter to be decided at a later date. This Court agrees with that reasoning and, therefore, that part of defendants’ motion should be denied.

Section 1331 allows federal-question jurisdiction when plaintiffs reserve the right to seek relief under a federal statute in discovery, despite pleading only state-law claims.

Williamson v. Fleetwood Homes of Mississippi, Inc. · filed 2004-11-23

Thus, if plaintiffs had chosen to proceed solely under state law, then it is plain that federal question jurisdiction would not exist in this ease. However, the fact that plaintiffs specifically refused to admit that they would not seek damages under the Magnuson-Moss Act leads this court to conclude that federal question jurisdiction exists in this case.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over a claim arising under federal law when the claim is not patently without merit.

Saleh v. Ridge · filed 2005-02-24

In order for the Court to have subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, (1) the claim must turn on an interpretation of the laws or Constitution of the United States, and (2) the claim must not be one that is “patently without merit.” ... Under these circumstances, Plaintiffs APA section 555 claim is not patently without merit, and the Court has jurisdiction of Plaintiffs APA claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over claims alleging that state law is preempted by federal law or violates the Commerce Clause, so long as those claims are not wholly insubstantial.

SPGGC, Inc. v. NHAG · filed 2005-03-14

In its amended complaint, SPGGC alleges that: (1) the National Bank Act preempts those portions of the New Hampshire CPA allegedly violated by the Simon Gift Card; and (2) to the extent the State is attempting to apply provisions of the CPA to the Simon Gift Card, the CPA interferes with interstate commerce, in violation of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. Those allegations are plainly sufficient to invoke this court's federal guestion subject matter jurisdiction. See generally 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 supplies no federal-question jurisdiction over a probate matter when no federal question is demonstrated.

In Re the Estate of Masters · filed 2005-03-16

Additionally, the government failed to demonstrate the existence of a federal question in the probate matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not give federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim if the plaintiff can establish every essential element without resolving a federal-law issue.

Pinney v. Nokia, Inc. · filed 2005-03-28

If a plaintiff can establish, without the resolution of an issue of federal law, all of the essential elements of his state law claim, then the claim does not necessarily depend on a question of federal law.