28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges a substantial, disputed question of federal law.

Edinburg United Police Officers Association v. City of Edinburg, Texas · filed 2020-07-29

The Court holds that Plaintiff alleged a substantial and disputed First Amendment question in its complaint, which confers federal question jurisdiction on this Court.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a well-pleaded complaint states a federal cause of action or necessarily depends on a substantial federal question; fraud allegations and a citation to a criminal identity theft statute do not suffice.

Ruffin v. Confletti · filed 2020-07-31

Jurisdiction under § 1331 arises where a “well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the 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). Plaintiff’s allegations regarding fraud do not involve a question of federal law. And while Plaintiff cites to the statute criminalizing identity theft, a private citizen may not assert a right of action under a criminal statute. See Jenkins v. Methodist Healthcare, No. 15-6195, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 10598, at *5 (6th Cir. May 6, 2016) (citing Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973)). Thus, there is no federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a civil action alleging violations of federal statutes.

Wass v. Amerigroup Texas, Inc. · filed 2020-08-03

These are federal statutes, so his suit is a civil action arising under the laws of the United States, and this Court may hear it.

Section 1331 requires facts demonstrating a federal law claim; merely invoking federal jurisdiction does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Glickstein v. Bulsara · filed 2020-08-06

Mere invocation of federal jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint states no federal cause of action.

Jerdon v. Davila · filed 2020-08-13

Absent a federal cause of action or diversity among the parties, the Court lacks the jurisdiction to proceed in this matter.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when the face of the complaint shows that federal law created the plaintiff’s cause of action.

Heier v. Czika · filed 2020-08-18

For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, a case arises under federal law when it is apparent from the face of the complaint that the plaintiff’s cause of action was created by federal law.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff to identify a federal law giving rise to the claims to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

GRANGER v. EQUIFAX, INC. · filed 2020-08-25

Ms. Granger also does not identify any basis for federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law, and a state statute restricting jurisdiction over state common-law claims does not divest that jurisdiction.

Inojosa v. Board of Trustees of the City Colleges of Chicago, Community College District 508 · filed 2020-09-15

CCC has not persuaded us that a state statute which precludes courts from exercising jurisdiction over state common-law claims somehow divests this Court of jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint asserts claims under federal law.

Chaudhry v. Amazon.com, Incorporated · filed 2020-09-18

But the presence of federal claims in a complaint suffices for removal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives a federal court jurisdiction when the face of a well-pleaded complaint asserts a cause of action created by federal law, including an ADA claim.

Thompson v. Rouses Enterprises, LLC · filed 2020-09-22

On its face, however, Plaintiff’s Petition raises a federal question by clearly asserting a claim within the parameters of the ADA.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when federal law creates the claim or relief necessarily depends on a substantial question of federal law.

Richardson v. Duane Reade Corporation · filed 2020-09-24

To invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff’s claims must arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A case arises under federal law if the complaint “establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Bay Shore Union Free Sch. Dist. v. Kain, 485 F.3d 730, 734-35 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting Empire Healthchoice Assur., Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677, 690 (2006)). Plaintiff does not invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction or assert any claim arising under federal law.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint presents no federal question on its face and its resolution does not necessarily turn on a substantial question of federal law.

Dale v. Fletcher · filed 2020-09-25

Because there is no federal question on the face of Plaintiff’s complaint and because it does not necessarily turn on a substantial question of federal law, see Rice, 260 F.3d at 1245, the Court lacks jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law, but does not provide jurisdiction over a civil legal malpractice claim that does not arise under federal law.

Nivens v. Henslee · filed 2020-10-13

To the extent that Nivens seeks to pursue a civil legal malpractice action in this Court, his claim also fails. ... To provide a federal forum for plaintiffs who seek to vindicate federal rights, Congress has conferred on the district courts original jurisdiction over civil actions that arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005); 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... These grounds do not apply here.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over an EMTALA claim because it arises under federal law, even if the claim fails on the merits.

Ortega-Santos v. San Francisco Health System, Inc. · filed 2020-10-14

EMTALA is a federal law. So plaintiffs’ claim pursuant to EMTALA arises under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... While this Court agrees with Hospital Del Maestro that the EMTALA claim against it is not one upon which relief can be granted (as discussed below), this is a matter to be resolved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), not Rule 12(b)(1).

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

Bishara Dental PLLC v. Morris Lendais Hollrah & Snowden PLLC · filed 2020-10-30

Pleading a federal cause of action is enough to imbue this Court with jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Merrell Dow, 478 U.S. at 808.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law for federal-question jurisdiction.

James v. NYC Department of Consumer Affairs · filed 2020-11-12

Plaintiff also asserts violations of state and city human rights laws, but in order for the exercise of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to be proper, Plaintiff must assert a claim that arises under federal law.

Section 1331 requires a federal cause of action to invoke federal-question jurisdiction; citing federal statutes that provide no express private right of action, without showing an implied one, is insufficient.

Matava v. CTPPS, LLC · filed 2020-11-18

Although citing to the CARES Act and various other federal laws, none of the statutes cited expressly provide a private right of action to enforce their provisions. ... Nor does the Complaint set forth sufficient (or any) analysis as to why, notwithstanding, the Court should find an implied private right of action. ... The Plaintiff has therefore failed to sufficiently invoke federal question jurisdiction.

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

Cottman v. Churck · filed 2020-11-24

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.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law when a well-pleaded complaint presents a federal cause of action or a substantial federal question.

PERI-OKONNY v. AMERICAN SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY · filed 2020-11-30

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. A claim “arises under” federal law if “a well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” ... Having dismissed the federal claims against the City and Chase, Peri-Okonny’s action no longer includes any well-pleaded federal claims.

Section 1331 requires a federal claim or a right to relief that depends on resolving a substantial question of federal law.

Bounassi 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 federal statutes invoked do not apply to the alleged conduct or authorize the civil action.

(PS) Sharma v. Hussain · filed 2021-01-04

A federal district court generally has original jurisdiction over a civil action when: (1) a federal question is presented in an action “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States” or (2) there is complete diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a). ... All three complaints assert federal question as the basis for jurisdiction in this matter, but the only federal sources of law plaintiff has ever cited in her various pleadings are statutes that do not confer jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff fails to establish that the action arises under federal law.

Davis v. Miss. Lottery & Sports Betting · filed 2021-01-04

As the Magistrate Judge stated in his Order [12], federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 has not been shown. ... Based upon the record, Plaintiff has not carried his burden of establishing the existence of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. This case should be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts no cause of action arising under federal law.

Richard v. Glens Falls National Bank · filed 2021-01-20

Plaintiff’s Complaint does not assert any causes of action “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States” that would give this Court a basis for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law, but a claim based only on a city charter does not qualify.

Moore v. Detroit, City of · filed 2021-01-25

For a court to have federal question jurisdiction, the action must arise under the “Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff does not mention any laws of the United States or provisions of the Constitution that apply to her claim. Even construing the Complaint liberally, the Court cannot identify any. Plaintiff does make several references to the City of Detroit Charter. ECF No. 1, PageID.4. However, this is not a federal law, and as such it is outside of this Court’s jurisdiction to determine whether it is being followed.

Section 1331 requires an alleged violation of federal law to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Gonzalo Rubang, Jr. v. Brooks · filed 2021-01-28

The district court properly dismissed without prejudice Rubang’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Rubang failed to allege any violation of federal law or diversity of citizenship in his fourth amended complaint.

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

Holmes v. United States of America · filed 2021-02-08

Second, the Court is without federal question jurisdiction over the amended complaint with the exception of plaintiff’s race discrimination claim against Georgia Pacific. District courts have original federal question jurisdiction over cases “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In 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. See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63 (1987).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint cites federal statutes but alleges no facts suggesting that its claims arise under federal law.

Suarez v. Marcus · filed 2021-02-12

But she alleges no facts that suggest that any of her claims fall under federal law. Thus, this Court lacks federal-question jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff’s claims.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over disputes arising under federal law; a state negligence complaint with no alleged state action to support a § 1983 claim does not qualify.

Naderi v. Worthington · filed 2021-02-16

District court jurisdiction generally flows from one of two federal statutes: 28 U.S.C. § 1332, providing for jurisdiction over disputes between “citizens of different States;” or 28 U.S.C. § 1331, providing for jurisdiction over disputes “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Neither applies here. ... Plaintiff attempts to satisfy federal question jurisdiction by alleging that the case is brought under “28 U.S.C. 1983,” presumably referencing 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, such a claim can only be brought against defendants “acting under color of state law.” Wilson v. Warren Cty., Ill., 830 F.3d 464, 468 (7th Cir. 2016). Plaintiff does not allege that Defendants were acting under color of state law, nor is there any reason to believe that they were.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to allege facts showing that the cause of action involves an issue of federal law.

Klosterman v. Boydston · filed 2021-02-16

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.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no conduct supporting a claim arising under federal law.

NEWCOMB v. DECATUR COUNTY DETENTION CENTER · filed 2021-02-18

Here, there is no allegation of conduct which could support the existence of federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to show that federal law creates the cause of action or that relief necessarily depends on resolving a substantial question of federal law.

Booth v. Kane · filed 2021-03-02

Federal subject matter jurisdiction may be based on (1) federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or (2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The complaint must establish either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on the resolution of substantial questions of federal law.

Section 1331 provides federal question jurisdiction when a complaint attempts to assert claims under federal statutes.

Samuel v. JP Morgan Chase Bank Nat'l Assoc. · filed 2021-03-03

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal question jurisdiction exists over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” “An action may ‘arise under’ a law of the United States if the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily turns on construction of federal law.” Bright v. Bechtel Petroleum, Inc., 780 F.2d 766, 769 (1986). Because the Complaint appears to be attempting to assert claims under federal statutes, there is federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges no cause of action arising under federal law.

Ricketts v. Joyce · filed 2021-03-08

As explained above, the allegations in the complaint do not establish that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction as Plaintiff has not alleged causes of action that “arise under” federal law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction from a broad assertion that federal law was violated without identifying a federal provision that supports the claim.

TCM FINANCE, LLC v. CONATEGI, LLC · filed 2021-03-11

Defendants’ remarkably broad statement, on its own, is plainly insufficient to confer federal jurisdiction on this Court. While the CARES Act may be a basis for federal question jurisdiction, Defendants point to no specific provision of the CARES Act that would prevent the Circuit Court from issuing the Writ of Possession and removing Defendant Orta from the subject property.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when federal law creates the cause of action or relief necessarily depends on resolving a substantial question of federal law.

Busto v. City of San Diego · filed 2021-03-16

Federal subject matter jurisdiction may be based on (1) federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or (2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The complaint must establish either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on the resolution of substantial questions of federal law. ... Here, the Complaint provides no basis for the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction as he does not allege a cause of action based on federal law or that there is diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim premised on 49 U.S.C. § 13707, which creates no federal cause of action or original jurisdiction.

Fracht FWO Inc. v. TPR Holdings LLC · filed 2021-03-17

However, 49 U.S.C. § 13707 neither creates a federal cause of action nor confers original jurisdiction for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or § 1337.

Section 1331 requires an alleged violation of federal law to support federal-question jurisdiction.

Howell v. United States · filed 2021-03-24

The district court properly dismissed without prejudice Howell’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Howell failed to allege any violation of federal law or diversity of citizenship.

Section 1331 requires facts suggesting a federal law claim; merely invoking federal jurisdiction does not establish it.

Powell v. TD Bank · filed 2021-04-01

Mere invocation of federal jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction. ... Here, Plaintiff has alleged no facts suggesting that the Court has federal question jurisdiction over her claims.

Section 1331 requires facts showing that a claim arises under federal law; invoking federal-question jurisdiction alone is insufficient.

Banks v. Dillion · filed 2021-04-05

Plaintiff has alleged no facts showing that his claims fall under the Court’s federal- question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires facts showing a claim arising under federal law; invoking federal-question jurisdiction alone is insufficient.

Tournesol Des Champs LLC v. Waizeneggar · filed 2021-04-08

Second, to the extent that the March 16, 2021 Complaint may be construed as a response to the Court’s November 17, 2020 Order, it invokes federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 but offers no facts suggesting the existence of a dispute “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when federal law creates the cause of action or the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolving a substantial federal question.

Salinas v. Felcor Hotel Asset Company, LLC · filed 2021-04-13

The complaint must establish “either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.”

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint that presents no claim under federal law.

Watson v. Himmelmann · filed 2021-04-15

Further, even affording the Complaint a liberal construction, it states no federal question, as the Complaint does not reference any federal laws and Himmelmann is not a State actor.

Section 1331 gives a federal court subject matter jurisdiction over claims alleging violations of federal statutes, and failure to exhaust Title VII administrative remedies does not remove that jurisdiction.

Hemphill v. Northport, City of · filed 2021-04-19

First, a court of competent jurisdiction rendered the Mitchell decision. The Mitchell plaintiffs alleged violations of two federal statutes, Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, so the deciding Court—this Court—had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The plaintiffs’ failure to exhaust their administrative remedies did not affect or undermine this Court’s jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires facts showing a federal law claim; merely invoking federal jurisdiction does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Tarhaka v. eBay · filed 2021-04-19

Mere invocation of federal jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction. ... Plaintiff therefore fails to demonstrate that the Court has federal question jurisdiction over his claims.

Section 1331 requires a federal court to exercise jurisdiction over a properly removed claim arising under federal law.

Carr v. The American Bottling Co. · filed 2021-05-03

Plaintiff’s FMLA claim arises under the laws of the United States. Therefore, the Court cannot reject its federal question jurisdiction over the FMLA claim and remand that claim to the state court.

A complaint that identifies neither a federal civil cause of action nor a federal law supporting its claims does not establish federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Thomas v. Thomas · filed 2021-05-06

However, Thomas has not identified a federal civil cause of action or specified any federal law in support of his claims (as opposed to a claim based on state law, which he may file in state court). See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction must “aris[e] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States”).

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction only when the plaintiff’s own cause of action arises under federal law; an unrelated federal regulation cited on a civil cover sheet does not establish jurisdiction.

Holmes v. Kading Briggs, LLP · filed 2021-05-11

This Court also has jurisdiction to consider “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “Under the longstanding well-pleaded complaint rule, however, a suit arises under federal law only when the plaintiff’s statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon federal law.” Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009) (internal quotation marks, alteration, and citation omitted). Although Plaintiff’s Complaint makes no reference to any federal law, the civil cover sheet does invoke 42 C.F.R. § 93.103. That regulation, however, simply defines “research misconduct” for purposes of policy statements pertaining to the Public Health Service, a part of the Department of Health and Human Services. Neither Plaintiff’s Complaint nor his Opposition to the instant motion provide any explanation how that federal regulation is any way pertinent to Plaintiff’s allegations about Defendant’s discovery conduct in state court. Because there is no federal question at issue in this case, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a supported federal claim; merely citing federal law does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Scott v. Neal · filed 2021-05-13

The mere citation of federal law is not enough to invoke federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when even a liberal reading of the complaint reveals no claim under federal law supported by the alleged facts.

Baltas v. Keefe Commissary Network LLC · filed 2021-05-13

Here, subject matter jurisdiction does not exist under § 1331. ... Baltas does not identify any other specific federal law under which his claims could arise. Even construing the complaint very liberally because of Baltas’s pro se status, the Court cannot discern a claim under federal law that would be supported by Baltas’s alleged facts.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted federal statute does not apply to the defendant and no federal statute is implicated.

Imagine This Future v. PEF President Wayne Spence · filed 2021-05-14

As PEF represents only public employees, it is not a “labor organization” as defined by the LMRDA and is not subject to the LMRDA. Thus, no federal statute is implicated in this case and there is no basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction when the complaint invokes no federal law and states no claim arising under federal law.

Evans v. Bongiorno · filed 2021-05-18

Plaintiff does not invoke any federal law, and the allegations in her complaint do not state a claim that arises under federal law. The Court therefore cannot exercise federal question jurisdiction over her claims.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over actions arising under federal law, but a complaint presenting no federal question does not qualify.

Gillispie v. Izuierdo · filed 2021-05-20

Defendant’s removal notice attempts to base federal court jurisdiction on 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides for jurisdiction over actions arising under federal law. However, the complaint presents no federal question.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction only when the plaintiff raises a claim under federal law.

Attia v. Ford Motor Co. · filed 2021-05-20

In this case, Plaintiff has not raised a claim under federal law, and Plaintiff appears to have focused instead on diversity jurisdiction in his Amended Complaint [5] and Response [11].

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

Dominic v. Goldman · filed 2021-05-24

But the federal statutes Dominic cites do not provide him a private right of action. ... And they cannot serve as the basis for an action “arising under” federal law.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts original jurisdiction when federal law creates the cause of action asserted in a complaint.

Morales v. Alonzo Wilder; Dr. Stephen McCulloh; Cheryl Smith; Lauren Milton; Karlie Vikowski; Other Unknown Livi · filed 2021-05-25

Relevant here is the fact that Congress has authorized the federal district courts to exercise original jurisdiction in " all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U. S. C. § 1331. Such federal question jurisdiction exists when a federal law creates the cause of action asserted in a complaint. Id. Here, Morales asserted claims under the Eighth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and 42 U. S. C. § 1983. In the July 2, 2019 written ruling dismissing Morales' federal law claims against the Livingston Parish defendants, the federal court indicated that it would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Morales' remaining state law claims " in light of the dismissal of the federal claims." It is therefore evident that the federal district court was exercising federal question jurisdiction in this matter.

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

Jack Strubel, Jr. v. Saif Corporation · filed 2021-05-25

The district court properly dismissed Strubel’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Strubel failed to allege any violation of federal law or diversity of citizenship in his second amended complaint.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts original jurisdiction over complaints asserting claims under federal statutes.

Byrd v. Cook · filed 2021-05-28

Defendants invoke 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as the source of the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over this case. They note that Mr. Byrd’s Complaint cites a number of federal statutes—including 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1348, and 1349 and 42 U.S.C. § 1985—as the basis for his claims. They correctly assert that the claims, therefore, present a federal question over which this Court has original jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the federal laws invoked in a complaint provide no cause of action.

Fidalgo v. United States of America · filed 2021-06-02

Although Vaz invokes this Court’s federal question jurisdiction, the laws referenced do not provide a cause of action.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint identifies no claim arising under federal law.

Lewis v. American Tower · filed 2021-06-03

First, Lewis did not identify any claim arising under federal law in support of his claims against American Tower.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law, and a complaint that identifies no federal cause of action does not invoke that jurisdiction.

Willis v. Cladwell · filed 2021-06-04

Although Willis additionally fills out the section of the form asking for the basis of federal question jurisdiction, he does not identify any cause of action “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Therefore, Willis also fails to sufficiently invoke this Court’s federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law even when a settlement release is raised as an affirmative defense.

Green v. Illinois State Board of Educat · filed 2021-06-07

District courts have jurisdiction over actions that arise under the Constitution or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... But “[a] defense is not part of a plaintiff’s properly pleaded statement of his or her claim.” Rivet v. Regions Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998). So federal question jurisdiction is secure.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint neither invokes federal law nor alleges facts supporting a claim arising under federal law.

Moskovits v. Federal Republic of Brazil · filed 2021-06-14

Plaintiff does not invoke any federal law, and the allegations in the complaint do not suggest that Plaintiff can state a claim arising under federal law. The Court therefore does not have federal question jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 requires an action to arise under federal law; a remover who identifies no such law does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

(UD)(PS) US Bank National Association v. Expose · filed 2021-06-17

But Expose does not identify any federal law under which this action arises, and furthermore does not attach the original complaint so the court may evaluate it.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over civil cases arising under federal law; a plaintiff who alleges no cognizable federal claim has not established that jurisdiction.

Lilly v. Travis County · filed 2021-06-30

Federal subject matter jurisdiction extends to civil cases “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” or over civil cases in which diversity of citizenship exists between the parties. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. ... Plaintiff has failed to allege a cognizable claim that this Court would have jurisdiction to adjudicate.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction when the complaint identifies no applicable federal cause of action or substantial federal issue.

Joseph v. Isbell · filed 2021-06-30

Beyond the fleeting mention of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Court can find no other support for federal question jurisdiction. That is, plaintiff does not contend that any federal statutes or treaties are at issue. He also does not suggest that his right to relief depends on the resolution of a substantial question of federal law. Finally, plaintiff is not suing the federal government, a federal agency, or a federal employee. For all these reasons, plaintiff has failed to carry his burden of demonstrating the existence of federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over medical malpractice and common-law tort claims when no federal law gives rise to them.

James v. Salpietro · filed 2021-06-30

Medical malpractice claims do not arise from federal law, and Plaintiff has not alleged or identified any provision of federal law that gives rise to her causes of action, so this Court lacks federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no facts suggesting that any claim arises under federal law.

Kim v. Bryant · filed 2021-07-06

Plaintiff alleges no facts that suggest that any of her claims arise under federal law. Thus, this Court lacks federal question jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff’s claims.

Section 1331 requires a federal question for federal subject-matter jurisdiction; a complaint alleging no violation of federal law does not satisfy that requirement.

McCarthy v. Nefesh Academy · filed 2021-07-15

Federal jurisdiction requires a federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or diversity of citizenship in a case arising under state law in which the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, id. § 1332. Plaintiff has not alleged a violation of her rights under federal law.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a civil action only when the complaint presents a federal question; a complaint asserting no cause of action based on federal law does not qualify.

ELLIOTT v. AKATOR CONSTRUCTION · filed 2021-07-22

Second, federal question jurisdiction does not exist. Federal question jurisdiction exists when a civil action arises “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Elliott has advanced no cause of action based upon federal law.

Section 1331 requires facts supporting a claim arising under federal law; merely invoking federal jurisdiction is insufficient.

Parker v. Special Needs X-Press, Inc. · filed 2021-07-26

Mere invocation of federal jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction only when a complaint states a claim under federal law.

Bradley v. Fudge · filed 2021-07-27

Mr. Bradley doesn’t state a claim under § 1983 or any other federal law that would supply this court with jurisdiction to hear the case.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction when no claim raising a question of federal law remains pending.

Panno v. Metroparks · filed 2021-07-28

And because no question of federal law remains pending before this court, this court no longer has federal question jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an ordinary property dispute between private residents that alleges no violation of federal law.

Bumgardner v. Rich · filed 2021-08-02

Instead, this appears to be a simple property dispute among North Carolina residents, for which this Court lacks any subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or § 1332.

Section 1331 supplies no federal-question jurisdiction when none of the claims arise under federal law.

Aqua Acceptance, LLC v. The Pelican Group Consulting, Inc. · filed 2021-08-04

None of the claims arise under federal law. ... And, there is no other basis for subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over a mortgage dispute when the alleged facts do not suggest a violation of federal law.

Zarour v. U.S. Bank, N.A. · filed 2021-08-09

The complaint does not suggest that the Court may exercise jurisdiction under either statute. First, the facts alleged do not suggest that Defendant violated any federal law with respect to Plaintiff’s mortgage.

Section 1331 permits federal district courts to hear civil actions arising under federal law, but supplies no jurisdiction when the court cannot discern a federal claim.

Baafi v. Gwinnett County Georgia · filed 2021-08-10

Federal district courts may exercise jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal laws. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Baafi has not identified, nor can the Court discern, a claim arising under federal law that would provide a basis for the Court’s exercise of subject matter jurisdiction.

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

Asamoah v. Amazon.com Services, Inc. · filed 2021-08-17

Second, the Court also has federal question jurisdiction over the first five counts because they arise under federal law.

Section 1331 requires facts showing a federal law claim; merely invoking federal jurisdiction is insufficient.

Cannon v. Capital Depot Inc. · filed 2021-08-23

Mere invocation of federal jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires facts showing that a claim arises under federal law; merely invoking federal-question jurisdiction does not establish it.

Mazzocchi v. Gilbert · filed 2021-08-24

Mere invocation of federal-question jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a federal-law claim, does not create federal-question jurisdiction.

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

Randall v. Methodist Children's Hospital · filed 2021-08-25

The Court is not aware of any federal statute implicated by these allegations. The Court therefore lacks federal subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over medical malpractice, negligence, and breach of contract claims that state no federal cause of action.

House v. University of Maryland Medical Center · filed 2021-08-25

At best, Plaintiff’s Complaint seeks to hold Defendant responsible for medical malpractice, negligence, and breach of contract, none of which state a federal cause of action. ... The allegations do not establish federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when an asserted claim is not shown to arise under federal law.

Brown v. Automattic · filed 2021-08-31

However, to the extent any such claim is asserted, it is unclear whether it arises under federal law, and thus does not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when federal law creates the cause of action or the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on a substantial question of federal law.

Serna v. Cooksey · filed 2021-09-06

This requirement is met only where “federal law creates the cause of action or … the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.”

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a private claim for compensatory damages under the Toxic Substances Control Act when that Act provides no such remedy.

Matlock v. Davis · filed 2020-09-14

Thus, absent a claim for equitable relief which Plaintiffs have not asserted, that statute has no application here and thus, the Plaintiffs have not established a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

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

Short v. Eu · filed 2020-10-06

Plaintiff has also failed to state a federal question. She attempts to invoke a federal statute, however, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, deals with criminal offenses and has no corresponding private right of action. ... Consequently, there is also no basis to support federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a civil claim under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act because that Act provides a private right of action.

BUCHANAN v. INGRAM CONTENT GROUP · filed 2020-10-06

Accordingly, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction through the CFAA.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over claims invoking only federal criminal statutes that provide no private right of action.

Norrie v. O'Gorman · filed 2021-03-02

Without a private right of action arising under federal law, this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint invokes only criminal statutes that provide no private right of action.

Ryan v. Alzaim · filed 2021-04-08

In sum, the only federal statutes referenced in the amended complaint are criminal statutes that do not provide a private right of action. Because Plaintiff’s claims do not arise under federal law, the Court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the action pursuant to § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a claimed violation of the CDC eviction moratorium when the moratorium creates no private cause of action.

Wilkerson v. Hoff · filed 2021-07-28

As no private cause of action was created by the CDC eviction moratorium, the Court concludes that it does not provide a basis for exercise of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to support jurisdiction when diversity jurisdiction is absent.

Napier v. BALDACCI · filed 2006-09-14

In this case, there is obviously no diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332; any jurisdiction must be based upon a federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a state-law claim has an independent state-law theory and federal law is not a necessary element.

Langer v. Roya Nikzad PHD Allergy & Acupuntcure · filed 2023-09-12

Because Plaintiff’s Complaint includes a state law theory that is not based on a violation of the ADA, and an ADA violation is not a necessary element of Plaintiff’s state law claims, federal question jurisdiction is not established.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction as an alternative to diversity jurisdiction; both are not required.

Narter-Olaga v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP · filed 2025-08-01

A case need not present both a federal question and diversity of citizenship for the court to possess subject-matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a personal injury tort claim that raises no federal cause of action.

Atkinson v. Atkinson · filed 2020-08-19

Such tort action is not one over which the Court possesses federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over claims arising under the Constitution or federal law, but not state-law tort claims alone.

Perez v. Rod Hornsby Real Estate · filed 2020-10-22

Plaintiff's damage claim does not arise under the United States Constitution or federal statutes.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law tort claim that does not arise under the Constitution or federal statutes.

Perez v. Acosta · filed 2020-10-22

Plaintiff's damage claim does not arise under the United States Constitution or federal statutes.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over fraud and personal injury claims that do not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Roberts v. Solari Enterprise Inc. · filed 2021-01-06

Plaintiffs’ fraud and personal injury claims do not raise a federal question because they do not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the only potential claims are state law personal injury claims.

(PS) Liang v. Anderson · filed 2021-05-04

The complaint also cannot be construed to assert a valid cause of action that would give this court jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ difficulties with Mr. Anderson. The only potential claims suggested by plaintiffs’ allegations are state law personal injury claims, not claims based on federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an emotional distress claim that neither arises under federal law nor requires construing federal law.

Holmes v. Ballard · filed 2021-06-29

First, Plaintiff does not have jurisdiction under § 1331 by virtue of suing under federal law or over a right that turns on the construction of federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges no facts suggesting a federal claim.

Glickstein v. Klein · filed 2020-08-05

Mere invocation of federal jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction. ... Plaintiff does not invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, and he fails to assert any facts suggesting that he can state any federal claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when vague allegations raise no question of federal law.

SIMMONS v. MARKET DISTRICT · filed 2020-08-06

The Court finds these vague allegations fail to raise questions of federal law, and, therefore, cannot give rise to this Court’s jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law; invoking federal jurisdiction without facts showing a federal law claim does not establish jurisdiction.

Salma v. NASA Department Headquarter · filed 2020-08-31

Mere invocation of federal jurisdiction, without any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction. See Nowak v. Ironworkers Local 6 Pension Fund, 81 F.3d 1182, 1188-89 (2d Cir. 1996). Plaintiff’s complaint does not involve any federal or constitutional right. The Court therefore cannot exercise federal question jurisdiction over his claims.

Section 1331 requires a complaint invoking federal-question jurisdiction to identify a basis in federal law, a treaty, or the Constitution; a bare assertion of federal-question jurisdiction does not establish it.

(PS) Sharma v. Hussain · filed 2020-10-06

Plaintiff cites federal question as the basis of jurisdiction in this matter; however, when asked to “list the specific federal statutes, federal treaties, and/or provisions of the United States Constitution that are at issue in this case” she simply states “see attached.” (ECF No. 5 at 7.) A review of the attached complaint and documents similarly fails to establish any basis for jurisdiction in this matter.

Section 1331 requires a cognizable federal legal theory to establish federal-question jurisdiction; unsupported allegations of violations of federal acts do not suffice.

Sobayo v. Ally Bank · filed 2021-03-15

While plaintiff summarily alleges defendant violated the FDCP Act and FTC Act, he fails to articulate a cognizable legal theory under either federal act. ... Thus, plaintiff fails to demonstrate federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint contains no facts suggesting a federal cause of action.

Harris v. Vox Media, Inc. · filed 2021-04-12

Plaintiff does not invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, and there are no facts in the complaint suggesting a federal cause of action.

Section 1331 requires the basis for federal-question jurisdiction to appear on the face of the complaint; a conclusory assertion of a § 1983 claim on appeal is insufficient.

Walthour v. City of Philadelphia · filed 2021-04-26

For federal question jurisdiction to exist under § 1331, “the party asserting jurisdiction must satisfy the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which mandates that the grounds for jurisdiction be clear on the face of the pleading that initiates the case.” Goldman v. Citigroup Glob. Mkts. Inc., 834 F.3d 242, 249 (3d Cir. 2016). On a “Designation Form” submitted with his complaint, Walthour checked a box indicating that he was proceeding under a civil rights federal question. But neither the complaint itself nor Walthour’s objections to the motions to dismiss referred to any federal law. Although Walthour claims on appeal that the “District Court has federal question jurisdiction of this case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983” (Doc. 14, at 1), that conclusory assertion is insufficient to invoke federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a pleaded federal question; vague allegations suggesting an FTCA claim do not establish one.

Brown v. Farruggia · filed 2021-05-07

Plaintiff has also failed to state a federal question. It seems that he may attempt to rely on the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), but there is no indication in what capacity he intends to sue these defendants, what role the defendants have, if any, with the EPA, or what constituted their alleged wrongdoing.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction is not established by a conclusory allegation of subject matter jurisdiction.

Bell v. Michaels Management Services, Inc. · filed 2021-06-15

The conclusory language in Bell’s complaint is not sufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction through federal question or diversity jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint offers only unsupported assertions of federal-law or constitutional violations.

Moss v. Hutchens Law Firm, LLC · filed 2021-06-21

The Court finds, upon de novo review of Plaintiff’s filings and the applicable law, that these statements fail to raise a federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint alleges no facts supporting a claim under federal law and offers only conclusory allegations.

Williams v. Krivitskaya · filed 2021-06-25

Further, the Court has considered whether it has federal-question or diversity jurisdiction over this matter and finds that it does not. ... Plaintiff has not alleged facts to support a claim under a federal law or statute. Rather than present a federal question, the Complaint includes conclusory allegations of espionage, torture, abuse, and neglect, but does include any facts to support these claims.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint makes only a conclusory assertion that due process rights were denied.

Johnson v. Rusin · filed 2022-02-17

However, this conclusory statement is insufficient to invoke federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to show that a claim arises under federal law; a conclusory assertion that federal law is involved is insufficient.

(PS) Macallister v. CALPERS · filed 2024-11-21

The complaint states the basis for the court’s jurisdiction is 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 because “the case involves federal law questions, including CalPERS’ violation of federal securities regulations.” (ECF No. 1 at 2.) However, the complaint contains no further allegations about any violations of federal securities regulations and this single, conclusory allegation is insufficient to invoke the court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

Sections 1331 and 1337 do not give federal courts jurisdiction to review an award made by a private contractual railroad arbitration board rather than a board created by statutory duty.

Brotherhood of Railway, Airline & Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employees v. Special Board of Ad · filed 1969-05-08

The second jurisdictional basis proposed is that this cause arises under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337. … That this case is inapplicable to the dispute before us is apparent if we keep in mind the fact that Board No. 605 is a contractual and not a statutory board. … There is no overriding equitable ground for finding a source of jurisdiction here. The result of this case cuts both ways, neither labor organizations nor railroads can petition a federal court to review a private arbitration board’s award.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a petition concerning an arbitration award when the underlying cause of action is neither federal nor one embodying a substantial federal question.

Riccio v. Gray · filed 1993-10-28

Jurisdiction lies in federal courts for actions “arising under” federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... The cause of action underlying the arbitration award here is neither a federal cause of action nor a cause of action embodying a substantial federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction to review a private arbitration award when the dispute does not arise under federal law and federal involvement is insufficient to support a constitutional claim.

Employees Protective Ass'n v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers · filed 1974-04-04

As noted with respect to 28 U.S.C. § 1337, the court does not perceive this case as “arising under” the Railway Labor Act or the Interstate Commerce Act. Nor does this court consider the federal involvement in the award here challenged to have been sufficient to raise a constitutional claim. It is true that the National Mediation Board was utilized to provide the third member of the arbitration board, but the resulting decision and award was nevertheless the product of a privately agreed upon process for resolving disputes with only tangential federal involvement.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a petition to vacate an arbitration award when the underlying dispute asserts only state-law claims.

McCarthy v. Smith Barney Inc. · filed 1999-07-29

Here, the underlying dispute between McCarthy and Smith Barney affords no basis for federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as McCarthy alleges claims only under Florida law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a petition to confirm an arbitration award based only on enforcement of a settlement agreement, which is a contract action.

International Label Service, Inc. v. Engineered Data Products, Inc. · filed 2001-07-27

As the enforcement of a settlement agreement is no more than a contract action, it does not, in itself, provide a federal question upon which jurisdiction may be based.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint to compel arbitration merely because the arbitration clause appears in a tribal-state gaming compact governed by federal law.

State of Wisconsin v. Ho-Chunk Nation · filed 2006-09-11

The question here is: since the IGRA enables and regulates contracts between tribes and the states, does any dispute arising from the resulting compact present a question under the IGRA? We think not. The connection to federal law set forth in Wisconsin’s complaint is tangential: Wisconsin’s complaint is based on an arbitration clause that happens to be con- tained in a compact between a state and a tribe.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint to compel arbitration merely because the arbitration clause appears in a tribal gaming compact negotiated under federal law.

State of Wisconsin v. Ho-Chunk Nation, Cross-Appellee · filed 2006-09-11

Wisconsin’s complaint simply requests that the district court compel arbitration. Without more, and without incorporating the Nation’s underlying complaint in arbitration, this complaint does not present a federal question over which the court has jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a claim based on privately established NASD arbitration rules.

Application of Prudential Securities Inc. · filed 1992-07-30

NASD rules are established and enforced by a private association and do not give rise to federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a contract contains an arbitration clause governed by the Federal Arbitration Act.

PPNP LLC v. Arya · filed 2025-04-08

So, an arbitration clause does not automatically confer federal-question jurisdiction on this Court simply because the Federal Arbitration Act exists.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction to review alleged procedural defects in a private railroad employer's initial disciplinary hearing when the employee does not challenge the later adjustment-board hearing.

Otto v. Houston Belt & Terminal Railway Co. · filed 1970-09-30

Thus, this Court is forced to conclude that it is without jurisdiction to hear plaintiff’s claim. He complains of the initial hearing held pursuant to the “Memorandum Agreement” between defendant and the union. He does not complain of the hearing before the Board. If plaintiff wishes to question the propriety of the initial hearing, his claim must be based on the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement relating to that subject.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction based on ERISA when the employee benefit plan is exempt as a governmental plan.

Lovelace v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America · filed 1991-09-27

Prudential asserts in its Notice of Removal that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, commonly known as federal question jurisdiction. ... The Wilmington City Public School System employee health insurance plan is a “governmental plan,” exempted from ERISA regulation and thus outside the subject matter jurisdiction of the Court.

Section 1331 provides federal question jurisdiction over a removed state-law claim when ERISA completely preempts the claim and resolving it requires applying federal law to an employee benefit plan.

Van Camp v. AT & T Information Systems · filed 1992-04-28

Because the application of state law in this case is preempted and federal principles must be employed to resolve the issues raised by Van Camp’s claims, the case was properly removed to federal court.

Federal-question jurisdiction is absent when a removed insurance dispute does not arise under ERISA because the policy is not an employee benefit plan.

Cross v. Bankers Multiple Line Insurance · filed 1992-12-31

Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over cases raising questions on federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Plaintiffs health insurance plan is not an employee benefit plan within the meaning of ERISA. Moreover, defendant Bankers has failed to carry its burden of establishing a proper basis for removal jurisdiction. Because this court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, it is, therefore, ORDERED that the above-styled and numbered cause shall be REMANDED to the 236th Judicial District Court of Tarrant County, Texas.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim for breach of an employment contract that is not an ERISA plan.

Delaye v. Agripac, Inc. · filed 1994-11-03

Because Delaye’s employment contract is not a “plan” governed by ERISA, his claim that his contract was breached does not present a federal question. The district court lacked jurisdiction to resolve this dispute.

Section 1331 does not preserve federal jurisdiction over USERRA suits against state employers when Congress limits those suits to state courts.

Velasquez v. Dorothy J. Frapwell and the Trustees of Indiana University, and United States of America, Interve · filed 1999-01-20

The defendants argue that jurisdiction continues in the federal courts under the general federal-question jurisdictional statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which section 211 of the statute amending USERRA does not purport to repeal. The argument has no merit; Congress’s intention to limit USER-RA suits against states to state courts is unmistakable; the defendant’s arguments that this ease was finally decided because the district court issued a final decision and so the amendment is inapplicable, and that if it is applicable it is unconstitutional, also plainly lack merit.

Section 1331 gives federal courts original, nonexclusive jurisdiction over Title VII claims.

Hirschbiel v. Johnson · filed 2000-10-24

Under a Title VII case, § 1331 provides the federal courts with original nonexclusive jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based on an HHS determination that defendants are not deemed Public Health Service employees.

Allen v. Christenberry · filed 2003-04-16

We also conclude that HHS’s determination, which came a day before the removal, that Drs. Christenberry and Godfree were not to be deemed employees did not create federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

An HHS determination that doctors are not Public Health Service employees does not itself create federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Allen v. Christenberry · filed 2003-04-16

However, this argument necessarily depends on the proposition HHS’s determination that they were not PHS employees created federal question jurisdiction under § 1331. Section 1446 does not separately provide jurisdiction. Because HHS's determination did not create federal question jurisdiction, removal under § 1446 was improper.

Section 1331 does not create federal-question jurisdiction merely because HHS determines that defendants are not Public Health Service employees under the FSHCAA.

Allen v. Christenberry · filed 2003-05-28

We also conclude that HHS's determination, which came a day before the removal, that Drs. Christenberry and Godfree were not to be deemed employees did not create federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law employment claims that are not preempted by federal labor law when no other federal jurisdiction is asserted.

Brown v. American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. · filed 2005-10-24

Defendant removed Plaintiffs complaint to federal court asserting federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... The Court therefore holds that Plaintiffs state law claims are not preempted by the LMRA. As Defendant does not assert that this Court otherwise has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs complaint, the matter shall be remanded to Wayne County Circuit Court.

Section 1331 does not supply federal question jurisdiction over a removed state law claim based only on ERISA preemption when the plaintiff cannot bring an ERISA cause of action.

Allergy Diagnostics Laboratory v. Equitable · filed 1991-12-17

Under the removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), absent diversity of citizenship (as in the present case), a defendant’s power to remove a state court action to federal court turns on whether the plaintiff’s claim arises under federal law within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1331. ... Because Third Circuit law currently precludes medical care providers from stating claims under ERISA, this court concludes that there is no basis to invoke its removal jurisdiction under the complete preemption doctrine and, therefore, defendant’s petition for removal should be denied and the case remanded to state court.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims completely preempted by ERISA even when the complaint does not facially state an ERISA cause of action.

Tingey v. Pixley-Richards West, Inc. · filed 1992-01-09

It follows that although the Tingeys’ original four-count state cause of action purported to plead only state law claims, the action was properly removed because the claims fell within the purview of the exclusive remedy provisions in ERISA. This means only a federal court can hear the claims when stripped of their state law disguises. The basis of jurisdiction, even though none of the claims facially stated an ERISA cause of action, was federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives a district court original jurisdiction when a well-pleaded complaint expressly asserts a claim under ERISA.

Richmond v. American Systems Corp. · filed 1992-05-01

For the moment, the Court need not address the “complete preemption” doctrine because the plain and unambiguous language of paragraph 80 of Count V clearly sets forth, in part, an ERISA cause of action against defendant Artabane as trustee of ASC ESOT.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state wrongful-discharge claim when its only connection to an ERISA plan is the calculation of lost benefits.

Roney v. NationsBank Corp. · filed 1992-08-20

As demonstrated below, Plaintiff’s original state petition was not subject to ERISA’s preemption provision, and thus did not constitute a federal claim capable of endowing this Court with jurisdiction in the first instance.

Section 1331 does not give federal courts jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because ERISA may preempt it.

Alexander v. Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. Anheuser-Busch Long Term Disability Income Insurance Plan · filed 1993-04-01

The question whether a state claim is preempted by ERISA is not enough, in itself, to raise a federal question, and thus to invoke the federal court’s jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over state law benefit claims completely preempted by ERISA, even when the complaint alleges no federal cause of action.

Shackelton v. Connecticut General Life Insurance · filed 1993-04-01

If a federal question does not appear on the face of plaintiffs complaint, then the suit does not present a federal question sufficient to confer jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1988) upon a federal court. ... Therefore, because the causes of action asserted in plaintiffs complaint are preempted by ERISA, defendants properly removed this action to this federal court.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a legal malpractice complaint that presents no federal question under ERISA or other federal law.

Kovnat v. Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis · filed 1993-08-13

No federal question cognizable under ERISA or any other federal statute or any treaty or constitutional provision is presented which might support jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or any substantive law.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction when an ERISA-preempted claim for plan benefits is pleaded under state law.

Thomason v. Aetna Life Insurance Company · filed 1993-11-09

Plaintiff originally brought her suit in Illinois state court, alleging breach of contract and violation of the Illinois Insurance Code. Aetna thereafter removed the action to the federal system, on the ground that plaintiffs cause of action was preempted by ERISA and hence it involved a federal question. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,1441(b). This was quite correct.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a removed state-law fraud claim about promised COBRA coverage when COBRA does not apply and the claim is too remotely connected to an ERISA plan to be preempted.

Haley v. Trees of Brookwood, Inc. · filed 1993-12-13

This is the kind of misrepresentation which is regularly and routinely addressed by state courts, and any connection to Trees’ ERISA plan is so tenuous, remote and peripheral as not to be within that degree of relationship to an ERISA plan which Congress contemplated when it wrote the preemption language in ERISA, but left it out of COBRA. ... Because there was no original jurisdiction in this court, this removal was improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and Haley’s motion to remand will be granted by separate order.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over pension and health insurance claims preempted by ERISA.

Christopher v. Davis Beach Co. · filed 1994-01-13

who contended that jurisdiction in the district court existed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Counts II and III of the amended complaint raised pension plan and health insurance claims which are preempted by ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a). ... We agree.

Section 1331 supplies no federal-question jurisdiction over removed state-law workers’ compensation bad-faith claims when the removing party fails to establish ERISA preemption.

Walker v. Health Benefit Management Cost Containment, Inc. · filed 1994-08-22

Because the parties in this cause are not diverse, federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is the only grounds for jurisdiction in this Court. Unless a federal question exists, this cause must be remanded. ... Thus, this Court finds that Service Lloyds has not met its burden of showing that the workers’ compensation exception to ERISA preemption does not apply and thus have not convinced this Court that removal is appropriate.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims that ERISA does not preempt.

Cook Wholesale of Medina, Inc. v. Connecticut General Life Insurance · filed 1995-09-20

However, if ERISA does not preempt the plaintiffs’ state claims, no federal jurisdiction would exist under either statute, and the case would have to be remanded to state court. ... Therefore, applying Castonguay and related cases to the present case, the regulation of the relationship between plaintiff and defendant does not encroach on ERISA, and claims resulting from the relationship are not preempted. ... Plaintiffs motion to remand the ease to state court is granted.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims to enforce rights under ERISA.

Harris v. General American Life Ins. Co., Inc. · filed 1995-10-24

Because all of the rights sought to be secured by plaintiff in this action relate to an employee benefit plan, and therefore fall under ERISA, this Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim against an ERISA plan administrator when the claim does not depend on plan terms and is not completely preempted by ERISA.

Rice v. Kanu Panchal, M.D., Rodrigo Sotillo, M.D., Rodrigo Sotillo, P.C., a Corporation · filed 1995-11-06

Therefore, his claim is not properly recharacterized as a suit to enforce his rights under the terms of a plan that is within the scope of § 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a), and the claim is not “completely preempted” under § 502(a). As a result, Rice’s claim does not present a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and therefore, his case was improperly removed to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b).

Section 1331 provides an alternative basis for federal district court jurisdiction when ERISA does not otherwise confer federal jurisdiction, but it does not confer jurisdiction on state courts.

Funk Manufacturing Co. v. Franklin · filed 1996-12-06

Our review of the cases cited by the plaintiffs reveals that they were actions filed in the federal district courts and merely stand for the proposition that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides an alternative basis for jurisdiction in the federal district court, if federal jurisdiction under ERISA is otherwise lacking, not that § 1331 provides a basis for state court jurisdiction.

Section 1331 supplies no federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when the only asserted federal basis is ERISA preemption and the claims do not relate to the benefit plan.

Carroll v. QHG of Alabama, Inc. · filed 1998-06-17

This court lacks jurisdiction over Carroll’s claims, as they are not ERISA preempted. ... Because the court finds that it has no jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), it is hereby CONSIDERED and ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion To Remand be and the same is hereby GRANTED.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state personal injury action’s motion to adjudicate settlement liens merely because an ERISA plan claims reimbursement from the settlement.

Speciale v. Katherine Seybold, Administrative Committee of the Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Associates Health and Welf · filed 1998-06-22

Speciale’s motion to adjudicate does not present a federal question under 28 U.S.C § 1331 and her case was improperly removed to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction based solely on an ERISA conflict-preemption defense.

Giles v. NYLCare Health Plans, Inc. · filed 1999-04-09

The presence of conflict-preemption does not establish federal question jurisdiction.