28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint presents no identifiable federal statutory or constitutional claim.

Holloway v. Erasing how Official Identity to Qualify for Bounty Hunters · filed 2021-01-04

The court cannot identify any federal statutory or constitutional provision that would give rise to plausible claim for relief against any named defendant or provide subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction only when a claim arises under the United States Constitution or federal law.

Perez v. Rentals · filed 2021-01-04

Although Plaintiff has indicated by a checkmark in the Complaint that she is relying on federal question jurisdiction, her claim does not arise under the United States Constitution or federal statutes.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint identifies no federal statutory or constitutional basis for a claim.

Holloway v. Fahey · filed 2021-01-04

The court cannot identify any federal statutory or constitutional provision that would give rise to plausible claim for relief against any named defendant or provide subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a case does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Graham v. Padda · filed 2021-01-22

There is no indication that this matter arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, so federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is inapplicable.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over civil complaints arising under the Constitution or federal law.

Clinton v. Riley · filed 2021-01-25

Section 1331, which is the “Federal question” statute, establishes that “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” ... Because Plaintiff brought complaints that arose under the Constitution and federal law, the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court is proper.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint identifies no federal cause of action and alleges no plausible constitutional claim.

Broadus v. Adventist Health Care Washington · filed 2021-01-25

The Complaint does not make plausible that the Hospital Defendants violated any federal statutes, nor does Broadus identify any federal cause of action. ... Thus, the Court finds no basis to exercise federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction when a complaint pleads a colorable claim arising under the Constitution or federal law.

SHUKLA v. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA HEALTH SYSTEMS · filed 2021-01-26

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal courts have federal question jurisdiction where a plaintiff “pleads a colorable claim ‘arising under’ the Constitution or laws of the United States.”

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction for claims involving federal law or the Constitution; alleging only state-law negligence does not establish it.

Porter v. Hanks · filed 2021-02-01

It can consider and decide cases that involve violations of federal laws or the federal Constitution. 28 U.S.C. §1331. ... The complaint does not allege violations of the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint, as pleaded, does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Moran v. Amen Center · filed 2021-02-01

As currently plead, the instant action does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, so federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is inapplicable.

Section 1331 requires a well-pleaded federal question; a constitutional claim against a private attorney who is not a state actor does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Wick v. Roth · filed 2021-02-05

In addition, Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently plead a federal question. For a court to exercise federal question jurisdiction, a well-pleaded complaint must establish “that federal law creates the cause of action or that plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27–28 (1983). ... Because Defendant is not a state actor, Plaintiff cannot assert his constitutional claims against Defendant.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state tort claims that do not arise under federal law, a federal treaty, or the Constitution.

Gousse v. Giardullo · filed 2021-02-08

Because such claims do not arise under a federal law, a federal treaty, or the Constitution of the United States, federal question subject matter jurisdiction cannot be invoked.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff invoking federal-question jurisdiction to plead a violation of a constitutional or federal statutory provision.

Kononen v. Oregon Health Authority · filed 2021-02-09

To invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff must plead that the defendant has violated some constitutional or statutory provision.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over cases arising under the U.S. Constitution, federal laws, or treaties; it does not apply when an action arises under none of them.

Hovis v. Frisch · filed 2021-02-10

The instant action does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, so federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is inapplicable.

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

Vongsvirates v. Rushmore Loan Management Services · filed 2021-02-19

Plaintiff has failed to allege any claims that would provide federal question jurisdiction in this action.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff invoking federal-question jurisdiction to identify the specific federal or constitutional basis for the suit.

4FLAC LLC v. Transcol, S.A. · filed 2021-02-22

Federal question jurisdiction arises “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... The Complaint in this case fails to assert any basis for this Court’s jurisdiction, and the Court will not speculate as to its jurisdiction. However, it is worth noting that if Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to federal question jurisdiction, it must indicate the specific federal or constitutional basis for the suit.

Section 1331 supplies no federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges dental malpractice without claiming a federal cause of action or a constitutional violation.

Zeller v. Zhou · filed 2021-02-25

Zeller does not claim Dr. Zhou acted with deliberate indifference or that he received constitutionally inadequate dental care in violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment. Accordingly, there is no basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff invoking federal-question jurisdiction to plead a violation of the U.S. Constitution or federal law.

IAN v. MCNAIR · filed 2021-03-08

WHEREAS, on the form complaint provided by the Court for pro se plaintiffs, Plaintiff has checked the box for “Federal Questions,” but in order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, Plaintiff must plead a violation of the U.S. Constitution or the laws of the United States, and he has failed to do so, see U.S. Const, Art III, Section 2 (providing that federal courts can hear “all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, [and] the laws of the United States . . . .”); 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 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law libel claim that does not arise under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties.

GRAHAM v. ASHRAF · filed 2021-03-25

The Complaint, however, asserts a claim for libel, a state-law tort. Compl. at 2. The action thus does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, and there is therefore no basis for federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction when the face of a properly pleaded complaint raises claims under the U.S. Constitution.

Stanley v. The GEO Group, Inc. · filed 2021-03-25

Accordingly, the Complaint was properly removed based on federal question jurisdiction, and the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion seeking a remand (Doc. 5).

Section 1331 requires a claim under the U.S. Constitution or federal law; citing only state statutes does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

IAN v. MCNAIR · filed 2021-03-29

WHEREAS, the Court noted that on the form complaint provided by the Court for pro se plaintiffs, Plaintiff checked the box for “Federal Question,” but in order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, Plaintiff must plead a violation of the U.S. Constitution or the laws of the United States, and he had failed to do so; and ... WHEREAS, the Court notes that the statutes listed by Plaintiff are New Jersey state statutes and not “federal statutes, federal treaties, and/or provisions of the United States Constitution”; and ... ORDERED that Plaintiff’s amended complaint be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and it is further ... ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall mark this matter as CLOSED.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint expressly asserts a claim under the United States Constitution.

Billiards & Brews, LLC v. City of Knoxville Tennessee · filed 2021-04-14

The face of Plaintiff’s Complaint presents a federal question.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law or the Constitution; a complaint alleging no federal cause of action does not invoke that jurisdiction.

Cintron v. Lang · filed 2021-05-03

Again, a federal court can decide cases involving violations of federal laws or the federal Constitution, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or cases between citizens of differing states, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. As Judge Pepper concluded, Cintron’s complaint does not allege a cause of action under federal law.

Section 1331 requires claims to arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Edwards v. Mackaffee · filed 2021-05-11

Plaintiff does not allege, nor is it apparent, that his claims arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, as required to establish jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff invoking federal-question jurisdiction to plead a violation of the U.S. Constitution or federal law.

ROCKEMORE v. CITY OF CAMDEN · filed 2021-05-12

If Plaintiff has intended to assert a claim for federal question jurisdiction, in order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, Plaintiff must plead a violation of the U.S. Constitution or the laws of the United States, and he has failed to do so, ... If Plaintiff fails to do so, this case will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a federal question grounded in a federal statute or constitutional right.

Nails v. Savannah Plastic Surgery · filed 2021-05-21

Despite asserting that jurisdiction is based on a federal question, plaintiff has identified no federal statute or constitutional right in her Complaint.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint identifies no federal statute or constitutional provision supporting its claims and the alleged facts reveal none.

Willis v. Kentucky Headquarters of Louisville, Kentucky · filed 2021-05-24

In the present case, Plaintiff has not met his burden of establishing federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff cites no federal statutes or United States Constitutional provisions in support of his claims, and the Court cannot discern any from the facts alleged. Therefore, the complaint fails to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question; citing constitutional amendments does not establish federal-question jurisdiction when the defendant is neither a state nor a federal actor under the asserted federal theories.

Redick III v. Lowes Home Centers, LLC · filed 2021-06-08

A federal court has subject matter jurisdiction of a case when it raises a federal question, or when diversity jurisdiction exists. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a); see also Home Depot USA 139 S.Ct. at 1745. Although Plaintiff cites various U.S. Constitutional Amendments in his Amended Complaint, Defendant “Lowes Home Centers” is neither a state actor, nor a federal actor for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), or the Federal Tort Claims Act. Absent federal question jurisdiction, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction of the case.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over medical malpractice claims that do not arise under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties.

Joseph v. Jamaica Hospital Medical Center · filed 2021-06-11

The Court also concludes that it lacks federal question jurisdiction over the above-captioned matters because the Complaints are devoid of claims “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”5 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts subject-matter jurisdiction over a Bivens claim asserting a cause of action implied under the Constitution, even when the availability of a Bivens remedy is disputed.

Lewis v. Bartosh · filed 2021-06-23

Congress grants district courts original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Because plaintiff is asserting a cause of action implied under the Constitution itself, a district court has subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over claims arising under the United States Constitution or a federal statute.

Randall v. Methodist Children's Hospital · filed 2021-06-24

This Court only has jurisdiction and authority to entertain cases that either (a) raise a federal question (involve claims arising under the United States Constitution or a federal statute) or (b) fall under the Court’s diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. This case does not appear to involve a federal question and to the extent it alleges any claim, the claim would likely arise under state law.

Section 1331 grants federal question jurisdiction only when an action arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States; Missouri unemployment law alone does not qualify.

Williams v. Unemployment Securities · filed 2021-07-07

The instant action does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, so federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is inapplicable.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over contract claims that do not implicate the Constitution or other federal law.

O'Keefe, Michael v. Capital One · filed 2021-07-13

In this instance, plaintiff cannot proceed under § 1331 because his allegations do not implicate any constitutional amendment or other federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law contract claims that do not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Howard v. NewRez, LLC · filed 2021-07-14

Because the instant action does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is inapplicable.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint raises a claim under the U.S. Constitution or federal law.

Mayfield v. Jackson · filed 2021-07-15

This includes claims arising under the U.S. Constitution or federal law. ... Hence, the Complaint was properly removed based on federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint fails to plausibly allege a violation of the Constitution or federal law.

Pierre v. Public Defenders Office · filed 2021-07-21

Pierre does not plausibly allege any violation of the United States Constitution or federal law. He thus fails to establish subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and fails to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1331 requires allegations showing that the case arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Heriot v. Safrit · filed 2021-07-23

The essential allegations contained in Plaintiff’s complaint are insufficient to show that the case is one “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no violation of federal law or the United States Constitution.

Saintal-Bowman v. Barashy · filed 2021-07-26

As a result, no federal question exists.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a petition identifies no constitutional provision or federal law as its basis.

DIARRA v. BROWN · filed 2021-07-27

Petitioner also cites 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as the basis for jurisdiction. Pursuant to § 1331, this Court has “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” But the Court is unaware of any constitutional provision or federal law that provides the basis for this petition. Thus, the Court finds there is no federal-question jurisdiction in this case under § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff to allege a violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States to invoke federal question jurisdiction.

Serieux v. Monroe · filed 2021-08-03

To invoke federal question jurisdiction, the plaintiff must allege a violation of the “Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff to allege a civil action arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

HE v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA · filed 2021-08-03

Plaintiffs again fail to set forth facts to support either diversity jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction. ... To establish federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff must allege a “civil action[] arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the only federal claim fails and no other claim arises under federal law or the Constitution.

Nelson v. Croymans · filed 2021-08-04

There is no federal question jurisdiction because Nelson’s § 1983 claim failed to establish Cummings acted under “color of state law,” and there is no other claim involving a federal statute or the U.S. Constitution. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives a federal court jurisdiction when the plaintiff asserts claims under federal statutes or the U.S. Constitution.

Phillips v. State of Washington · filed 2021-08-09

He has asserted claims under both federal statutes and under the U.S. Constitution. Accordingly, the Court has federal question jurisdiction and the Court need not address the Defendants’ claims that the Plaintiff has not shown the Court has diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction for a nonfrivolous claim under a federal statute, the Constitution, or a U.S. treaty; absent a federal claim, the court lacks that jurisdiction.

Carr v. Vanderplas · filed 2021-08-09

Subject-matter jurisdiction is also proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 when a plaintiff asserts a “non-frivolous claim of a right or remedy under a federal statute,” the Constitution, or treaties of the United States, commonly referred to as “federal question” jurisdiction. ... For these reasons, the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to either 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 or 1332, and this action must be dismissed without prejudice! pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3).

Section 1331 requires a complaint asserting constitutional claims against private parties to allege a basis for treating their conduct as state action to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

(PS) Nalley v. Laporte · filed 2021-08-12

As such, without allegations demonstrating how and why she may properly assert her constitutional claims against these defendants, Nalley has not shown the Court has subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of a federal question.

Section 1331 gives a district court federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint that alleges a federal claim, including a § 1983 claim based on a Fourth Amendment violation.

Dixon v. Economy Inn · filed 2021-08-16

They allege that the Brunswick Police Department escorted them from the Economy Inn and filed a police report—which this Court construes as an allegation of a Fourth Amendment violation. The Court therefore has federal question jurisdiction over the Brunswick Police Department.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction only over civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States; jurisdictional allegations that invoke no federal law are facially deficient.

Bivens v. Rudolph (Bivens) · filed 2021-08-18

“Federal subject matter jurisdiction based on the presence of a federal question is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and requires a civil action to arise under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” ... Here, plaintiffs jurisdictional allegations are facially deficient because this condition isnot met.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint about medical bills alleges no violation arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties.

Bieniek v. Alvarado Hospital B.H.V. · filed 2021-08-24

Thus, as alleged, the Complaint does not contain any allegation of a violation arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Accordingly, based on the claims plausibly asserted in the Complaint, the court lacks federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over an action that does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Williams v. Unemployment Securities · filed 2021-08-30

The instant action does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, so federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is inapplicable.

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

Nails v. Huntington Bank · filed 2021-08-31

Here, Plaintiff has not identified any claims arising under federal laws or the United States Constitution to establish subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties; a complaint asserting no such claim lacks federal-question jurisdiction.

LARSEN v. AROOSTOOK MENTAL HEALTH CENTER · filed 2021-09-01

Pursuant to section 1331, federal 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. Plaintiff’s complaint does not assert a claim based on the United States Constitution, a federal statute, or a federal treaty. The Court thus lacks federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff asserts no claim under federal law or the United States Constitution.

Akers v. Funding · filed 2021-09-03

Moreover, the Court does not independently discern a basis for subject-matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff asserts no claim under federal law or the United States Constitution.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction only when the plaintiff brings a claim arising under federal law; allegations amounting only to state-law tort claims do not suffice.

Pendleton, Kenneth v. Madison Kipp Corporation · filed 2020-08-04

This leaves only § 1331, meaning that plaintiff may proceed in this court if he brings a claim arising under federal law. ... Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint does not invoke this court’s jurisdiction under § 1331 either.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges only violations of city or state law, even if the plaintiff invokes federal-question jurisdiction.

Harris v. Belleclaire Hotel LLC · filed 2020-08-05

Plaintiff alleges that the private hotel where he resides is violating city or state law. Although Plaintiff invokes the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, these facts do not suggest a federal cause of action.

Section 1331 does not confer original jurisdiction when defendants identify no valid federal question in a state-law ejectment action.

Penfold v. Buchanan · filed 2020-08-10

Since defendants have failed to identify any valid federal question at issue, this Court cannot assert original jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law estate dispute merely because the plaintiff calls the trustee’s conduct a civil-rights violation without relying on federal law for relief.

Winslowet-Alps v. Estate Elise W. Harris · filed 2020-08-13

Plaintiff’s claims regarding the administration of his mother’s estate arise under state law, not federal law. Plaintiff’s allegation that it violates his civil rights to have a trustee exercise discretion over the distribution of his benefits does not rely on any federal statute for relief.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts no federal claim and relief on its state-law claims does not depend on a federal-law question.

Hildebrandt v. C R Bard Incorporated · filed 2020-09-08

Because the complaint asserts no federal claim and Plaintiffs’ right to relief on the state law claims does not depend on resolution of a federal law question, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the federal question statute.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when the complaint asserts no federal claim and relief does not depend on a federal-law question.

Pierce v. C R Bard Incorporated · filed 2020-09-08

Because the complaint asserts no federal claim and Plaintiffs’ right to relief on the state law claims does not depend on resolution of a federal law question, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the federal question statute.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over state law claims when the complaint asserts no federal claim and relief does not depend on resolving a federal law question.

Schrader v. C R Bard Incorporated · filed 2020-09-08

Because the complaint asserts no federal claim and Plaintiffs’ right to relief on the state law claims does not depend on resolution of a federal law question, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the federal question statute.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts no federal claim and relief on its state-law claims does not depend on resolving a federal-law question.

Person v. C R Bard Incorporated · filed 2020-09-08

Because the complaint asserts no federal claim and Plaintiffs’ right to relief on the state law claims does not depend on resolution of a federal law question, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the federal question statute.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts only state law claims and relief does not depend on resolving a federal law question.

Mello v. C R Bard Incorporated · filed 2020-09-08

Because the complaint asserts no federal claim and Plaintiffs’ right to relief on the state law claims does not depend on resolution of a federal law question, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the federal question statute.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts no federal claim and relief on its state-law claims does not depend on resolving a federal-law question.

Nigh v. C R Bard Incorporated · filed 2020-09-08

Because the complaint asserts no federal claim and Plaintiffs’ right to relief on the state law claims does not depend on resolution of a federal law question, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the federal question statute.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when the complaint asserts no federal claim and relief does not depend on resolving a federal-law question.

Tapper v. C R Bard Incorporated · filed 2020-09-08

Because the complaint asserts no federal claim and Plaintiffs’ right to relief on the state law claims does not depend on resolution of a federal law question, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the federal question statute.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts no federal claim and relief on its state law claims does not depend on resolving a federal law question.

Van Holt v. C R Bard Incorporated · filed 2020-09-08

Because the complaint asserts no federal claim and Plaintiffs’ right to relief on the state law claims does not depend on resolution of a federal law question, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the federal question statute.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts no federal claim and relief on state-law claims does not depend on resolving a federal-law question.

Smith v. C R Bard Incorporated · filed 2020-09-08

Because the complaint asserts no federal claim and Plaintiffs’ right to relief on the state law claims does not depend on resolution of a federal law question, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the federal question statute.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when the complaint asserts no federal claim and relief does not depend on resolving a federal-law question.

Legg v. C R Bard Incorporated · filed 2020-09-08

Because the complaint asserts no federal claim and Plaintiffs’ right to relief on the state law claims does not depend on resolution of a federal law question, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the federal question statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Yokeno, 973 F.2d at 809.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law breach-of-contract counterclaim that presents no federal question.

Suarez v. Camden Property Trust · filed 2020-09-08

The court does not have diversity or federal question jurisdiction over defendants’ North Carolina state-law breach of contract counterclaim. Cf. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims based solely on a federal preemption defense.

Youngers v. AFT Transport, Inc. · filed 2020-09-09

J.B. Hunt improperly removed this case because J.B. Hunt’s assertion of a federal defense of preemption is insufficient to make this case arise under federal law within the meaning of 28 U.S.C § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts no federal claim and its state law claims do not depend on resolving a federal law question.

Easton v. C R Bard Incorporated · filed 2020-09-10

No federal question jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the master complaint asserts no federal claim and the state law claims alleged in the complaint do not depend on the resolution of a federal law question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the only remaining claim is a state-law medical malpractice claim.

Haughie v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc. · filed 2020-09-17

At this juncture, the only remaining claim is the malpractice claim under State law. There is no basis for federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that do not necessarily depend on resolving federal law.

Countryside Bank v. Central Market of Indiana, Inc. · filed 2020-09-21

On the face of the well-pleaded complaint, plaintiff has asserted only state law causes of action, none of which necessarily depend upon the resolution of federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that do not arise under federal law.

Rideout v. Exxon Mobil Corporation · filed 2020-09-24

The court does not have federal-question jurisdiction over Rideout’s state-law claims because they do not arise under federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a claim alleging only a violation of state law.

Hill v. Hall · filed 2020-09-28

The factual allegations in the Complaint do not invoke any federal law that could give the Court jurisdiction over this action, and Plaintiff does not allege that the parties involved are citizens of different states.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges only state-law claims and no violation of a federally guaranteed right.

STEWART v. WEXFORD · filed 2020-11-10

Here, there is no allegation of conduct which could support the existence of federal question jurisdiction. ... The complaint does reference § 1983, but no violation of a federally guaranteed right has been alleged, instead the complaint specifically focuses on state law claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law fraud claim that raises no federal question.

Tellis v. Shuman · filed 2020-11-13

Generally speaking, the Constitution and Congress have given federal courts authority over a case only when the case raises a federal question (28 U.S.C. § 1331) or when diversity of citizenship exists between the parties (28 U.S.C. § 1332). ... Tellis’ tort claim for fraud sounds in state law. Because he brings a state law claim and not a federal question, my subject matter jurisdiction over this action depends upon satisfaction of the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1331 requires a federal question; a claim based only on state law does not satisfy it.

Blackwell v. Ohio Truck Sales, LLC · filed 2020-11-13

Generally speaking, the Constitution and Congress have given federal courts authority over a case only when the case raises a federal question (28 U.S.C. § 1331) or when diversity of citizenship exists between the parties (28 U.S.C. § 1332). ... Because she brings a state law claim and not a federal question, my subject matter jurisdiction over this action depends upon satisfaction of the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law legal-malpractice claim that asserts no federal claim.

Bryant v. Waddell · filed 2020-11-23

As to his complaint about his former lawyer’s performance, Plaintiff does not assert a federal claim.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts only state-law claims and no federal cause of action or federal statute, despite a defendant’s contention that the dispute concerns a federal trademark.

Matrix Advertising, LLC v. Gilman · filed 2020-12-01

However, the First Amended Complaint does not assert federal causes of action nor invoke federal statutes, and there is no claim for violation of the Lanham Act. ... Accordingly, Defendants fail to establish that the Court has federal question jurisdiction over this matter.

Section 1331 requires a colorable claim arising under federal law; claims arising under state law do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Hickson v. VIM Store · filed 2020-12-01

A plaintiff properly invokes federal question jurisdiction under Section 1331 when she pleads a colorable claim “arising under” the Constitution or laws of the United States. Id. Here, Plaintiff does not establish federal question jurisdiction, as her claims arise under state, not federal, law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law tenancy claims or a private plaintiff’s allegations of federal criminal violations.

Bey v. La Casse · filed 2020-12-10

Plaintiff’s allegations that Powell violated federal criminal law cannot be a basis for federal question jurisdiction, and her remaining claims about her tenancy arise under state law.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts no federal claim and its state-law claims do not depend on resolving a federal-law question.

Hand v. C R Bard Incorporated · filed 2020-12-11

Because the complaint asserts no federal claim and Plaintiffs’ right to relief on the state law claims does not depend on resolution of a federal law question, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the federal question statute.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when the complaint asserts no federal claim and relief does not depend on resolving a federal-law question.

Butterfield v. C R Bard Incorporated · filed 2020-12-11

Because the complaint asserts no federal claim and Plaintiffs’ right to relief on the state law claims does not depend on resolution of a federal law question, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the federal question statute.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts no federal claim and relief on its state-law claims does not depend on resolving a federal-law question.

Garcia v. C R Bard Incorporated · filed 2020-12-11

Because the complaint asserts no federal claim and Plaintiffs’ right to relief on the state law claims does not depend on resolution of a federal law question, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the federal question statute.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts no federal claim and relief on its state-law claims does not depend on resolving a federal-law question.

Dipasquale v. C R Bard Incorporated · filed 2020-12-11

Because the complaint asserts no federal claim and Plaintiffs’ right to relief on the state law claims does not depend on resolution of a federal law question, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the federal question statute.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts no federal claim and the state-law claims do not depend on resolution of a federal-law question.

Campbell v. C R Bard Incorporated · filed 2020-12-11

Because the complaint asserts no federal claim and Plaintiffs’ right to relief on the state law claims does not depend on resolution of a federal law question, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the federal question statute.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts no federal claim and relief on its state-law claims does not depend on resolving a federal-law question.

Brown v. C R Bard Incorporated · filed 2020-12-11

Because the complaint asserts no federal claim and Plaintiffs’ right to relief on the state law claims does not depend on resolution of a federal law question, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the federal question statute.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when the complaint asserts no federal claim and relief does not depend on resolving a federal-law question.

Bozak v. C R Bard Incorporated · filed 2020-12-11

Because the complaint asserts no federal claim and Plaintiffs’ right to relief on the state law claims does not depend on resolution of a federal law question, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the federal question statute.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts no federal claim and relief on its state-law claims does not depend on resolving a federal-law question.

Barela v. C R Bard Incorporated · filed 2020-12-11

Because the complaint asserts no federal claim and Plaintiffs’ right to relief on the state law claims does not depend on resolution of a federal law question, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the federal question statute.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts only state law claims and relief does not depend on resolving a federal law question.

Badawi v. C R Bard Incorporated · filed 2020-12-11

Because the complaint asserts no federal claim and Plaintiffs’ right to relief on the state law claims does not depend on resolution of a federal law question, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the federal question statute.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts no federal claim and relief on its state-law claims does not depend on resolving a federal-law question.

Atkins v. C R Bard Incorporated · filed 2020-12-11

Because the complaint asserts no federal claim and Plaintiffs’ right to relief on the state law claims does not depend on resolution of a federal law question, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the federal question statute.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges no federal claim and relief on its state-law claims does not depend on resolving a federal-law question.

Alaimo v. C R Bard Incorporated · filed 2020-12-11

Because the complaint asserts no federal claim and Plaintiffs’ right to relief on the state law claims does not depend on resolution of a federal law question, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the federal question statute.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts no federal claim and relief on its state-law claims does not depend on resolving a federal-law question.

Wesson v. C R Bard Incorporated · filed 2020-12-11

Because the complaint asserts no federal claim and Plaintiffs’ right to relief on the state law claims does not depend on resolution of a federal law question, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the federal question statute.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when the complaint asserts no federal claim and relief does not depend on resolving a federal-law question.

Van Luvender v. C R Bard Incorporated · filed 2020-12-11

Because the complaint asserts no federal claim and Plaintiffs’ right to relief on the state law claims does not depend on resolution of a federal law question, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the federal question statute.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts no federal claim and the state-law claims do not depend on resolving a federal-law question.

Stokes v. C R Bard Incorporated · filed 2020-12-11

Because the complaint asserts no federal claim and Plaintiffs’ right to relief on the state law claims does not depend on resolution of a federal law question, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the federal question statute.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts no federal claim and relief on its state-law claims does not depend on resolving a federal-law question.

Sagastume v. C R Bard Incorporated · filed 2020-12-11

Because the complaint asserts no federal claim and Plaintiffs’ right to relief on the state law claims does not depend on resolution of a federal law question, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the federal question statute.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts no federal claim and relief on its state-law claims does not depend on resolving a federal-law question.

Russ v. C R Bard Incorporated · filed 2020-12-11

Because the complaint asserts no federal claim and Plaintiffs’ right to relief on the state law claims does not depend on resolution of a federal law question, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the federal question statute.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when the complaint asserts no federal claim and relief does not depend on resolving a federal-law question.

Rainey v. C R Bard Incorporated · filed 2020-12-11

Because the complaint asserts no federal claim and Plaintiffs’ right to relief on the state law claims does not depend on resolution of a federal law question, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the federal question statute.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts no federal claim and relief on its state-law claims does not depend on resolving a federal-law question.

Paige v. C R Bard Incorporated · filed 2020-12-11

Because the complaint asserts no federal claim and Plaintiffs’ right to relief on the state law claims does not depend on resolution of a federal law question, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the federal question statute.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when the complaint asserts no federal claim and relief does not depend on resolving a federal-law question.

Osborn v. C R Bard Incorporated · filed 2020-12-11

Because the complaint asserts no federal claim and Plaintiffs’ right to relief on the state law claims does not depend on resolution of a federal law question, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the federal question statute.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts no federal claim and relief on state-law claims does not depend on resolving a federal-law question.

Jackson v. C R Bard Incorporated · filed 2020-12-11

Because the complaint asserts no federal claim and Plaintiffs’ right to relief on the state law claims does not depend on resolution of a federal law question, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the federal question statute.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when the complaint asserts no federal claim and relief does not depend on resolving a federal-law question.

Hubler v. C R Bard Incorporated · filed 2020-12-11

Because the complaint asserts no federal claim and Plaintiffs’ right to relief on the state law claims does not depend on resolution of a federal law question, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the federal question statute.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts only state-law claims and relief does not depend on resolving a federal-law question.

Hinchey v. C R Bard Incorporated · filed 2020-12-11

Because the complaint asserts no federal claim and Plaintiffs’ right to relief on the state law claims does not depend on resolution of a federal law question, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the federal question statute.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to present a claim arising under federal law; state-law claims and inapplicable federal statutes do not supply federal-question jurisdiction.

BROTHERS v. KRANER · filed 2020-12-17

Accordingly, for all of the reasons discussed above, the Complaint fails to set forth a basis for federal question subject matter jurisdiction in this action.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint asserting state-law tort claims when the complaint gives no indication that the plaintiff is pursuing federal claims, even if similar claims could be brought under federal law.

PAPA v. CORAOPOLIS BOROUGH · filed 2020-12-18

Here, Defendants have invoked the Court’s original jurisdiction to hear cases “arising under” federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. But as the Court noted in its show-cause order, Ms. Papa’s complaint does not appear to reference any federal law and asserts various tort claims that exist under Pennsylvania law. ... Ms. Papa’s complaint gives no indication that she is pursuing false-arrest and malicious-prosecution claims under federal law, rather than state law. And the fact that she otherwise asserts purely state-law claims and elected to file her case in state court provides at least some evidence that she is not. If any doubt remains, it must “be resolved in favor of remand.” Manning, 772 F.3d at 162. The Court will therefore remand this case to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when no ERISA cause of action remains.

Neurological Surgery, P.C. v. Aetna Health Inc. · filed 2021-01-04

With no ERISA causes of action, only ... state law causes of action remain; no federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 exists.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over a breach-of-contract claim arising under state law.

Sukowatey, Gary v. St. Croix County · filed 2021-01-05

As mentioned, such a claim falls under the purview of state law, and thus, raises no federal question.

Section 1331 requires a discernable federal question in the complaint; claims pleaded solely under state law do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Cook v. Kroger Marketplace · filed 2021-01-06

Here, the complaint does not contain any discernable federal question for purposes of establishing jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint asserting only state tort claims.

GATES v. AMUNDSEN · filed 2021-01-07

Pursuant to section 1331, federal district courts “have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The plaintiff’s complaint does not assert any claims based on the United States Constitution, a federal statute, or a federal treaty; rather, it asserts only what appear to be state tort claims. See Complaint at 4. Accordingly, this court lacks federal question jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint seeks relief under state law and does not necessarily depend on resolving a substantial federal issue.

Vernon v. Oil Patch Group, Inc. · filed 2021-01-22

As such, the Complaint does not establish that FLSA, or any other federal law, creates Plaintiffs’ causes of action or that their right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction when a claim arises under federal law; state-law tort claims without a necessary federal issue do not qualify.

Logan v. Town of Windsor · filed 2021-01-25

First, the complaint did not plead federal-question jurisdiction because its claims did not “aris[e] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim independent of federal law.

WILLARD v. INDUSTRIAL AIR, INC. · filed 2021-01-29

First, as a state law claim independent of federal law, the court cannot exercise federal question jurisdiction over this claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (2020).

Section 1331 does not itself confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims against a defendant when the complaint asserts no federal claim against that defendant.

Berry v. Dunn · filed 2021-02-05

Berry asserts no federal claim against Dunn in her complaint, and she avers that both she and Dunn are residents of Kentucky. The Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction to entertain those claims under either its federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or its diversity of citizenship jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when an amended complaint contains only state law claims.

HINES v. JOHNSON · filed 2021-02-09

As described above, Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint contains only state law claims, thus this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over any claims in the matter.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state law action when the complaint presents no federal claim or qualifying embedded federal issue.

Westlake Fitness LLC v. County of Ventura · filed 2021-02-11

There are no federal claims asserted in the state court action, no “federal question is presented on the face of” the state court complaint, and the state court action does not fall within the “special and small category of cases” in which there is federal jurisdiction over a state law claim.

Section 1331 supplies original federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when complete preemption under LMRA § 301 makes the claim arise under federal law.

Radcliff v. San Diego Gas & Electric Company · filed 2021-02-12

The “well-pleaded complaint rule” governs whether a case arises under federal law for the purposes of § 1331. ... Accordingly, the Court has original jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s PAGA claim because Defendants have satisfied their burden to show that Plaintiff’s underlying overtime claim is preempted by § 301 of the LMRA.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint presents only state-law causes of action.

Richard v. Glens Falls National Bank · filed 2021-03-03

Plaintiff also cited 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as a basis for subject matter jurisdiction, but the complaint only presents state law causes of action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law breach-of-contract claim that presents no federal question.

Hammond, Sr. v. Wabash Auto Group · filed 2021-03-08

No federal question is presented on the face of the Complaint. Hammond’s breach of contract action is a matter of state law.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law for federal-question jurisdiction; a plaintiff seeking only state tort law remedies has not sufficiently alleged that basis for jurisdiction.

(PC) Ioane v. Merlak · filed 2021-03-10

Because plaintiff states in his objections that he seeks remedies only under California state tort law, plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged that this federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action based on the presence of a federal question. ... “Federal subject matter jurisdiction based on the presence of a federal question is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and requires a civil action to arise under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over state-law foreclosure and landlord-tenant disputes when the complaint alleges no colorable federal claim.

Johnson v. Ikezi · filed 2021-03-22

Here, Plaintiffs’ claims do not arise under the United States Constitution or the laws of the United States. Rather, Plaintiffs seek this Court’s intervention in a dispute with Defendants regarding the foreclosure of their property.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction when the only federal claim is dismissed and only state-law claims remain.

TAYLOR v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC · filed 2021-03-29

The MMWA claim, the only federal claim in the action, must therefore be dismissed. It follows that there is no federal question, and no federal-question subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not give federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims for damage during intrastate shipping merely because the carrier raises a federal preemption defense; those claims do not arise under federal law absent complete preemption.

Asphalt Contractors Inc v. R&J Transport Inc · filed 2021-04-05

Congress has not occupied the field of intrastate shipping, and therefore Asphalt’s claims do not arise under federal law. As no other basis for federal jurisdiction has been asserted, Asphalt’s motion to remand will be granted.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law medical malpractice claims that raise no colorable federal claim.

Reyes v. New York Presbyterian Hospital · filed 2021-04-05

The Court has considered whether it may exercise its federal question jurisdiction over this complaint and finds that it cannot. Although plaintiff alleges more detail regarding the duration and types of treatments she received for her recurring breast cancer and other medical problems, (Id. at 6-13), all of plaintiff’s claims of negligence and medical malpractice arise under state law, not federal law, and should have been pursued in state court.

Section 1331 does not confer embedded federal question jurisdiction over a state law claim when the federal issue arises only as a potential defense and is therefore not necessarily raised by the claim.

Winn v. California Post Acute LLC · filed 2021-04-06

The federal issue raised relates to Defendant’s potential defense, not the claims alleged by Plaintiff. As such, the federal issue is not necessarily raised.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint asserting only a state-law breach of contract claim.

Snow v. Chula Vista and Escondido Parole Office/s · filed 2021-04-14

Snow’s lone claim is for breach of contract, a state law claim, so federal question jurisdiction isn’t available.

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

Sanford v. Sargent · filed 2021-04-15

Under §1331, the general rule, referred to as the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” is that a civil action arises under federal law for purposes of § 1331 when a federal question appears on the face of plaintiffs properly pleaded complaint. ... By limiting his complaint to state law claims and providing limited information in response to the Court’s orders, Mr. Sanford has failed to present a substantial question of federal law. Accordingly, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim arising only under state law.

Kitchen v. Developmental Services of Nebraska, Inc. · filed 2021-04-19

This Court also lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear Kitchen’s claims against Mitchell based on the centrality of a federal question and under the doctrine of supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367, respectively. ... The only claim that Kitchen alleges against Mitchel is for IIED, which is a tort claim arising under state law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts no federal claim and its state-law claims do not depend on resolving a federal-law question.

Whitmore v. C R Bard Incorporated · filed 2021-04-26

No federal question jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the master complaint asserts no federal claim and the state law claims alleged in the complaint do not depend on the resolution of a federal law question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction over a later attorney fee dispute governed by state law.

Nichols v. Illinois Department Of Transportation · filed 2021-04-29

Nichols’ contingency fee dispute against Longo invokes Illinois law, meaning jurisdiction can no longer be based on 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims based on stray references to federal law; the complaint must assert a federal-law cause of action or necessarily depend on a substantial federal question.

24e Fitness LLC v. Internal Credit Systems Inc · filed 2021-04-30

ICS has not met its burden to show that 24e’s complaint provides a basis for federal question jurisdiction, which exists only when the well-pleaded complaint contains a federal-law cause of action or a state-law cause of action that “‘necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.’” Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F.3d 1292, 1310 (11th Cir. 2001) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. v. Const. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 27–28 (1983)). 24e’s complaint does not contain any causes of action that find their basis in federal law. A few stray references to federal law do not transform claims for breach of contract and related state-law torts into federal causes of action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a professional negligence claim arising purely under state law.

(PS) Liang v. Kallis · filed 2021-04-30

Such a claim would arise purely under state law, as it does not raise a federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state tort claims that do not arise under federal law.

MACCAGNO v. MACCAGNO · filed 2021-05-07

Because Plaintiff and both defendants are citizens of New Jersey, this Court does not have diversity jurisdiction under § 1332, nor do Plaintiff’s tort claims “aris[e] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States” pursuant § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a claim to arise under federal law; an apparent state-law medical malpractice claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Ingraham v. Saint Mary Hospital · filed 2021-05-12

To establish federal question jurisdiction, the claims must “arise[] under the Constitution [or] laws . . . of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiffs do not establish that any of their claims arise under a Constitutional provision or federal statute, as they seem to be alleging only medical malpractice, a state law claim. See Dkt. No. 1 at 1-2. As such, they fail to demonstrate that this Court has federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when the complaint alleges no plausible federal claim.

Seniw v. Cannavino · filed 2021-05-15

As a result, this case will be dismissed for lack of a federal question. Without a federal question or complete diversity, quite simply, this Court cannot adjudicate this matter.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim governed only by state tort law.

Downs, Patricia v. City of La Crosse · filed 2021-05-18

Because such a claim is not governed by federal law, this court lacks jurisdiction over Downs’ claim under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer substantial federal question jurisdiction over a state law claim that does not necessarily raise an actually disputed federal issue.

Utah Housing Corporation v. Country Pines · filed 2021-05-24

For the reasons that follow, the court concludes that Utah Housing’s claims do not necessarily raise any federal issue that is actually disputed.

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

Soto v. Kalatzes · filed 2021-06-08

This Court can only hear cases with federal question jurisdiction—where the action arises under federal laws2—or diversity jurisdiction—where the controversy is between citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.3 Here, the complaint only alleges state-law claims, Plaintiff and Defendants are all citizens of Utah, and the amount in controversy is $25,000. Thus, there is no federal question or diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a pleaded federal claim or other basis for federal-question jurisdiction; unclear references to federal statutes alongside apparent state-law claims do not establish it.

Williams v. Fresno County Department of Child Support Services · filed 2021-06-09

As to federal question jurisdiction, the FAC appears to only allege state law claims for defamation, fraud, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Although the complaint cites to various federal statutes, it is not clear which, if any, of these references are intended to allege a claim against the named defendants or what the basis of those claims may be.

Section 1331 does not give a federal court jurisdiction over state law medical malpractice claims when the complaint alleges no claim arising under federal law.

Joseph v. NYU Langone Medical Business Office · filed 2021-06-11

The Court also concludes that it lacks federal question jurisdiction over the above-captioned matters because the Complaints are devoid of claims “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”5 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

John Berkery, Sr. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile · filed 2021-07-09

Because Berkery’s amended complaint raised only state law claims, the District Court could not have exercised federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no plausible federal claim and its facts support only state-law negligence or products-liability claims.

Sherwyn v. HQ · filed 2021-07-13

In her complaint, Plaintiff failed to allege any basis for federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Additionally, the facts she has alleged also do not support a plausible federal claim against the Defendants. Rather, the allegations in the complaint support a claim for negligence or products liability that ordinarily would be governed by state law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a medical malpractice claim arising under state law without a federal claim.

Barnes v. Mercy Hospital · filed 2021-07-19

Nevertheless, the alleged conduct does not amount to a federal claim. At best, the Complaint asserts a claim for medical malpractice. Such a claim arises under Maryland law and may be raised in a state court, but cannot be brought in this court, absent a basis for federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law; an implied-contract claim under state law does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Oceans Rose v. Community Outreach Behavioral Services · filed 2021-07-27

Despite lack of diversity in this case, Her Oceans could still establish subject matter jurisdiction if it can show that its claim rests on an alleged violation of the Constitution, an alleged violation of federal law, or a violation of a treaty of the United States. See U.S.C. 28 § 1331. In its claim, Her Oceans proffers no violation of federal law, nor can the Court divine an apparent violation of federal law from the facts alleged.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims independent of federal law.

HONERKAMP v. THE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL AUTHORITY · filed 2021-08-06

First, as state law claims independent of federal law, the court cannot exercise federal question jurisdiction over these claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (2020).

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a guardianship petition seeks relief only under state law.

Banks v. Steiger · filed 2021-08-06

No federal question is presented here because petitioner seeks the appointment of a guardian only on state law grounds.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim when the asserted federal issue arises only as a defense and is not necessarily raised by the claim.

Heim v. 1495 Cameron Avenue, LLC · filed 2021-08-17

The Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ claims do not present an embedded question under Grable. The federal issue raised relates to Defendants’ potential defense, not the claims alleged by Plaintiffs. As such, the federal issue is not necessarily raised.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint that alleges no federal cause of action or substantial question of federal law; labeling a state-law conspiracy claim a federal question does not suffice.

Hood v. Veazey · filed 2021-08-20

The Plaintiffs do not assert a conspiracy claim pursuant to federal law nor do they assert an underlying federal cause of action upon which a conspiracy claim may lie. Accordingly, this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no facts supporting a federal claim and instead appears to assert state-law claims.

(PS)Elam v. CEPTS · filed 2021-08-23

Plaintiff’s complaint, to the extent that it is intelligible, does not remotely allege sufficient facts from which the court can draw a reasonable inference that a federal claim exists. Plaintiff does not identify a particular constitutional right that was purportedly violated, and his stated basis for federal jurisdiction is more akin to state-law claims. See Lawler v. Montblanc N. Am., LLC, 704 F.3d 1235, 1245 (9th Cir. 2013) (reciting the elements of a claim for IIED under California law); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide original jurisdiction over a state-law unjust-enrichment claim that presents no federal question.

Favors v. Chase Bank USA, N.A. · filed 2021-09-02

Because the unjust-enrichment claim does not present a question of federal law, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 cannot supply the statutory grounds for original jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a claim to arise under federal law; state-law health care liability claims with no discernable federal question do not qualify.

Bunch v. RHA Health Services · filed 2021-09-07

Nor did Plaintiffs identify how their claims arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” such that federal question jurisdiction could exist.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint identifies no federal law as a basis for its claims.

IBRAHIM v. WELLS FARGO · filed 2020-07-24

Plaintiff’s complaint does not invoke federal question jurisdiction. The complaint does not point to any federal statute, rule, regulation or case as the basis for his claims.

Section 1331 requires facts showing that the cause of action involves an issue of federal law to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Yates v. Walter · filed 2020-07-24

In order to invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, plaintiff must allege facts showing the cause of action involves an issue of federal law.