28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint; a defendant's removal allegations do not establish jurisdiction.

Hawaiian Ranchos Road Maintenance Corporation v. Lopez · filed 2023-11-13

Further, although Gilroy cites a slew of federal statutes in his notice of removal, see Dkt. No. 1 at 4–7, the Court likewise lacks federal question jurisdiction as “[t]he presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’” not by a defendant’s removal allegations.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; a defendant’s removal allegations do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Hawaiian Ranchos Road Maintenance Corporation v. Schick · filed 2023-11-13

Further, although Defendant Mason cites a slew of federal statutes in her notice of removal, see Dkt. No. 1 at 4–7, the Court likewise lacks federal question jurisdiction as “[t]he presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’” not by a defendant’s removal allegations.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint raising only state-law claims when no exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule applies.

Perez v. City of Los Angeles · filed 2023-11-21

Accordingly, since the State Case raises only state law claims and no exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule applies, there is no federal question jurisdiction over the State Case.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a properly pleaded complaint seeks relief under federal law.

Mello v. Page, County · filed 2023-11-22

Though Plaintiff’s Petition, including Count Three, is jumbled, it is apparent that it presents a federal question on its face. The Petition seeks an order from a court regarding Defendants’ obligations and Plaintiff’s rights under the ADA; it plainly presents a federal question.

Section 1331 requires a federal cause of action on the face of a well-pleaded complaint; a § 1983 label alone does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Martell-Rodriguez v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico · filed 2023-11-28

To the extent Plaintiffs are seeking to proceed under this Court’s federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, “a federal cause of action appears on the face of a well-pleaded complaint.” ... Though Plaintiffs include 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in their case caption, there is no further mention of it in the Complaint, nor are there facts alleged that imply a Section 1983 violation occurred.

Federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 must arise from the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; a defendant’s asserted constitutional defense cannot supply it.

Munoz v. Jamaica Builders LLC · filed 2023-11-29

Here, Removing Defendants’ only source of even a federal ingredient comes in the form of a putative violation of their constitutional due process rights to “prepare a defense,” which is barred under the well-plead complaint doctrine.

Section 1331 requires courts to assess federal-question jurisdiction from the well-pleaded complaint.

Foxworth v. Brookside Properties · filed 2023-12-04

When examining assertions of federal question jurisdiction, the Court must rely upon the well-pleaded complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a federal defense or counterclaim does not support removal.

Byung Duck Cho v. Yoon Chung Yoo Shin · filed 2023-12-12

Here, the underlying Complaint contains a single claim for unlawful detainer. No federal claim is alleged. To the extent Defendants attempt to allege a federal defense or counterclaim, neither forms a basis for removal.

Section 1331 requires a well-pleaded complaint that raises an issue of federal law to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Spitters v. Spitters, Sr. · filed 2023-12-15

A cause of action “arises under federal law only when the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint raises issues of federal law.” Hansen v. Blue Cross of Cal., 891 F.2d 1384, 1386 (9th Cir. 1989). ... Plaintiff has not shown the Court has subject matter jurisdiction based on a federal question.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint for federal-question jurisdiction.

GGIF Glendale, LLC v. Green · filed 2023-12-18

In order to remove a case to federal court based on federal question jurisdiction, the federal question must appear on the face of a plaintiff's complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the state court petition; a removing party cannot create federal-question jurisdiction by raising federal issues in its removal papers.

Craighead v. Heckman · filed 2023-12-21

As Heckman did not assert a federal question or constitutional issue in the petition filed in Wayne County Probate Court, this Court lacks jurisdiction notwithstanding plaintiffs’ attempts to generate a federal question by raising constitutional issues in the removal petition and response brief.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the complaint; claims arising only under state tort and contract law do not qualify.

Austin v. Econo Auto Painting of West Tennessee, Inc. · filed 2023-12-28

This means that the federal question must be apparent from the “face” of the complaint. Id. Plaintiff pleads claims based in tort and contract law—state causes of action. No claim arises under federal law.

Section 1331 requires a well-pleaded federal claim; citing federal statutes without supporting facts does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Perkins Jr. v. Panorama Towers Condo Unit Owners, Dennis Kariger · filed 2024-01-05

In short, Perkins, Jr. fails to demonstrate that he has plausibly stated a claim under any federal statute and thus fails to demonstrate federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the well-pleaded complaint; a straightforward state law claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Timm · filed 2024-01-11

To determine whether federal question jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, “a court must look to the well-pleaded complaint alone.” ... The Complaint plainly does not raise a substantial federal question as it contains only a straightforward state law claim for Account Stated.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when federal law appears only in a defendant’s defense or counterclaim.

Barrera v. Salinas III Case remanded to 229th Judicial District Court of Starr County, Texas · filed 2024-01-13

Per the well- pleaded complaint rule, Defendants cannot invoke federal jurisdiction by asserting violations of federal law as defenses or counterclaims.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.

Town of Newburgh, New York v. Newburgh EOM LLC · filed 2024-01-23

“The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.”

Section 1331 requires courts to determine federal-question jurisdiction from the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint.

Bellini Condominium Association, Inc. v. Village of Bal Harbour, Florida · filed 2024-01-25

To determine whether a cause of action “arises under” federal law for purposes of Section 1331, the district court applies the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” which requires that the Court examine “what necessarily appears in the plaintiff’s statement of his own claim[.]” Holmes Grp., Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 830 (2002) (citation omitted).

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; federal defenses or counterclaims do not create jurisdiction.

LFT 5 LLC v. Rodriguez · filed 2024-02-07

In sum, Plaintiff’s claim is purely a state-law action, and Defendant cannot create federal question jurisdiction by filing federal defenses or counterclaims.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear in the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; state law claims alone do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Robinson · filed 2024-02-15

Here, federal question jurisdiction does not exist because Wells Fargo’s complaint brings only state law claims for declaratory relief, cancellation of instrument, quiet title, and slander of title.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law unlawful detainer claim merely because defendants assert federal claims in a removal notice.

Guardia Piazza D'Oro, LLC v. Ellis-Sanders · filed 2024-03-06

While Defendants’ Notice of Removal lists various federal causes of action (see Doc. 1 at 4), they are not asserted by Plaintiff in Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges only state-law claims and the federal issue arises as a defense.

Ramos v. San Diego American Health Center · filed 2024-03-14

Here, there is no federal question on the face of Plaintiff’s Complaint as Plaintiff alleges only state law causes of action. And it is well settled that a federal defense does not give rise to federal question jurisdiction. See Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 393. Cases proceeding against the government under the FTCA are removable not because the complaints present a federal question but because Congress has elsewhere decided that federal courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over these actions. 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b)(1). As such, the Court finds that it lacks federal question subject matter jurisdiction. Id. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the complaint; a federal defense cannot supply jurisdiction.

Rapoport v. NAPA Transportation, Inc. · filed 2024-03-21

A complaint without a federal question presented on its face is beyond the power of a federal court to adjudicate, and a defendant may not circumvent this requirement by asserting a federal defense to the complaint.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a removed state-law action merely because the defendant raises a federal preemption defense.

Reale v. Providence and Worcester Railroad Company · filed 2024-03-28

Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, the focus is on what claims the plaintiff alleges in the complaint, and the fact that a defendant may raise federal law defenses or counterclaims does not allow the defendant to remove the case to a federal court. ... Therefore, I conclude that there is no federal question jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a federal defense does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB v. Landis · filed 2024-03-29

Because there is no federal question on the face of Plaintiff’s Complaint, and the federal defenses Defendant seeks to assert do not confer federal subject matter jurisdiction, these arguments do not provide a basis for removal in this case.

Section 1331 applies the well-pleaded complaint rule: the complaint itself must present a claim arising under federal law.

Chapman v. Truist Bank · filed 2024-04-08

For purposes of § 1331, the Court applies the well-pleaded complaint rule to determine whether a claim arises under federal law. ... The complaint does not assert any claim arising under federal law.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the complaint; unsupported assertions of a federal claim do not establish jurisdiction.

Catron v. Payne · filed 2024-04-08

In addition, Plaintiff has not met his burden of establishing federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The “well-pleaded complaint” rule requires that “a federal question be presented on the face of the complaint.” Mich. S. R.R. Co. v. Branch & St. Joseph Ctys., 287 F.3d 568, 573 (6th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff cites no facts to support a claim for the violation of his constitutional rights or any other federal cause of action. Therefore, the complaint fails to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal claim in the plaintiff’s complaint; a possible federal defense does not confer federal-question jurisdiction.

Management Group, Inc. v. Jacobson · filed 2024-04-10

While Defendant asserts that this case is the same as the case he filed against Plaintiffs in federal court, which did allege a federal question, the Court must look to the complaint. The complaint only brings a claim for eviction. That Defendant might rely on federal law as a defense to the eviction does not give this Court jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the complaint; a complaint alleging no facts supporting a federal cause of action does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Gonzalez v. Lakshmi Narayan Hospitality Group Louisville, LLC · filed 2024-04-16

In addition, Plaintiff has not met her burden of establishing federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The “well-pleaded complaint” rule requires that “a federal question be presented on the face of the complaint.” Mich. S. R.R. Co. v. Branch & St. Joseph Cntys., 287 F.3d 568, 573 (6th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff alleges no facts to support a federal cause of action. Therefore, the complaint fails to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the complaint; a claim solely for state-law breach of contract does not qualify.

JS Freight LLC v. Snow Joe LLC · filed 2024-04-17

As an initial matter, the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction in this case, as Plaintiff has only brought one single claim for breach of contract, which sounds in state law, not federal law. ... To invoke this Court’s federal question jurisdiction, Plaintiff must satisfy the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” which states that “for a court to be able to exercise its statutorily conferred federal-question jurisdiction, a federal question must appear on the face of the complaint.”

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; a federal counterclaim does not establish jurisdiction.

Long Island Roller Rebels v. County of Nassau · filed 2024-04-25

Rather, only defendants’ asserted counterclaim invokes federal law—and it is well-established that removal on the basis of a federal counterclaim is improper.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a state-law complaint presents no federal claim or right to relief and resolving the requested relief requires no federal-law determination.

Knudsen v. Hightower Holdings LLC · filed 2024-04-26

To determine whether to grant the injunctive relief sought by Plaintiffs, the Court does not need to consider federal law, as there is no federal claim or federal right to relief on the face of the complaint.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when claims arising under federal law appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint.

TotalEnergies Marketing Puerto Rico Corp. v. Helechal Gas Station, Inc. · filed 2024-04-26

The Court thus has no trouble finding that federal-question jurisdiction is evident from the face of the verified complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; federal defenses or counterclaims cannot establish jurisdiction.

Pathlight Property Management v. Battle · filed 2024-04-29

No federal question is presented on the face of Plaintiff’s complaint. To the extent Defendant presents defenses and/or counterclaims, these cannot form the basis for federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction when a federal question appears on the face of a properly pleaded complaint.

Beverley v. Jam Electric, LLC · filed 2024-04-29

Federal question jurisdiction exists in civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Here, federal question jurisdiction is apparent on the face of the Complaint.

Section 1331 requires federal-question jurisdiction to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; a counterclaim cannot supply it for removal under section 1441.

Pessada Holdings, LLC v. Lawson · filed 2024-04-30

Under the well-pleaded-complaint rule, federal-question jurisdiction must appear on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint. ... Therefore, neither a counterclaim under federal law nor a state-law counterclaim that federal law preempts suffices to establish original jurisdiction for purposes of removal under section 1441.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of a properly pleaded complaint.

HARDAWAY v. PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT · filed 2024-05-06

Federal question jurisdiction must appear on the face of a properly pleaded complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.

Jackson v. Jackson · filed 2024-05-08

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal question jurisdiction exists “only when a federal question is presented on the face of the Plaintiff’s properly pleaded Complaint.” Caterpillar Inc., 482 U.S. at 392.

Section 1331 requires a well-pleaded complaint to raise a sufficient federal question for federal-question jurisdiction.

McKeon v. RAH Equity Holdings, LLC · filed 2024-05-16

Plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint does not raise federal questions sufficient to demonstrate this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; a defense or counterclaim cannot establish jurisdiction.

(UD)(PS) Liu v. McIntyre · filed 2024-05-24

As discussed above, however, federal question jurisdiction cannot be based on a defense, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim raising a federal question.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when no federal question appears on the face of the complaint.

Abney v. Federal Correctional Institution McDowell · filed 2024-05-28

While Plaintiffs assert that this court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1361 (ECF No. 1 ¶ 67), there is no federal question on the face of the Complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal issue in the well-pleaded complaint; a federal defense cannot establish jurisdiction.

Detroit, City of v. Soul Tribe International Ministries · filed 2024-05-30

At best, then, the issues are defenses, which are insufficient to confer jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires the complaint’s well-pleaded allegations to establish a cause of action arising under federal law.

Discover Bank v. McGraw · filed 2024-06-03

Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 arises only where the well-pleaded allegations in the complaint establish a cause of action that “aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff’s complaint presents only state-law claims and no federal question on its face.

Benham v. Five Point Dental Specialists, Inc. · filed 2024-06-04

Nor does Five Point’s petition invoke any federal statute or regulation. Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, there is no federal question jurisdiction and no basis for removal.

Section 1331 does not permit federal-question jurisdiction to rest on a defendant’s answer or counterclaim.

(UD)(PS) Fang v. Coleman · filed 2024-06-06

However, Coleman’s answer or counterclaim cannot serve as the basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim merely because a federal standard of care may arise as a defense.

Ritchey v. RTD Carriers, Inc. DO NOT DOCKET IN THIS CASE. (CASE REMANDED). · filed 2024-06-06

Thus, even assuming, without finding, that the definition in § 371.2(a) forms a federal standard of care, this would be a defensive issue rather than a federal question lying in the shadow of Plaintiffs’ well-pleaded complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a defendant cannot create federal-question jurisdiction by citing federal statutes.

Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Walcott · filed 2024-06-10

Walcott cannot cite these statutes in order to manufacture federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action that anticipates a federal defense to a state-law claim.

Capitol Broadcasting Company, Incorporated v. City of Raleigh, North Carolina · filed 2024-06-17

This is because the action would still consist of defendants preemptively raising the DPPA as a defense against an impending state-law suit under the NCPRA. Such a declaratory judgment action cannot enter the federal courts through 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of a properly pleaded complaint; a complaint alleging no claim under federal law does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Royal v. Royal · filed 2024-06-27

“The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Liberally construing Betty’s Complaint, she does not state a claim under any federal law and there is no general “forgery statute” in federal law. Thus, she has not pled a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim when no federal question appears on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.

Utah Department of Transportation v. Oveson · filed 2024-07-15

Having reviewed the parties’ arguments, the court concludes that no federal question is presented by DWR’s claims regarding the fishing easement as no “federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987).

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a federal defense does not create federal question jurisdiction.

Goshen Mortgage v. DeBoskey · filed 2024-07-17

The Court does not look to defenses to create federal question jurisdiction because “a federal defense does not make the case removable.”

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear in the plaintiff’s cause of action; a question disclosed only in an answer does not establish jurisdiction.

Robertson, Anschutz, Schneid, Crane & Partners, PLLC v. Greenberg · filed 2024-07-19

A federal question that is only disclosed in an answer to the complaint will not suffice as a basis for jurisdiction, nor will one that is disclosed in the complaint’s anticipation of a probable defense, rather than in its establishment of the plaintiff’s cause of action.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; federal claims arising from later enforcement of a settlement agreement do not supply jurisdiction over the original state-law action.

Bank of America NA v. Arsenis · filed 2024-07-25

In this case, where diversity jurisdiction does not apply, we must determine whether the complaint, on its face, raised a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... It did not. ... Arsenis asserts that he has federal claims arising from the enforcement of the settlement agreement, but those claims did not appear on the face of the complaint and do not change the nature of the original action.

Section 1331 requires the federal question to arise from the plaintiff’s complaint; a defendant’s third-party claims do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Rubin Lublin TN PLLC v. Greenberg · filed 2024-07-25

In this case, the Court’s removal jurisdiction is clearly not properly invoked. ... Defendant’s assertion of federal questions within the Court’s original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 exclusively refers to those “brought forth in [his] 3rd Party Complaint” under Section 1983 (see Doc. No. 1 at 5–6) or in an affidavit he filed in an altogether different proceeding in Davidson County Circuit Court.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint.

MOUNTAIN PORTFOLIO OWNER NJ, LLC v. FAMS PETRO LLC · filed 2024-07-30

Because jurisdiction is determined based on a plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint, no federal jurisdiction exists.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction depends on the plaintiff’s complaint; a defendant’s counterclaims cannot establish it.

HSBC Bank USA v. McZeal · filed 2024-08-14

However, under the well-pleaded complaint rule, a court may not consider counterclaims in determining whether the court has federal question jurisdiction over an action.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the well-pleaded complaint.

Brooks v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, The · filed 2024-08-14

For a case to arise under federal law, the federal question must be apparent on the face of the well-pleaded complaint. ... Here, the complaint alleges no viable basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear in the plaintiff’s complaint; a federal defense or counterclaim does not create federal-question jurisdiction.

Peak Property Rentals v. Gibbons · filed 2024-08-16

However, this too fails because Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts only a state law cause of action, and Defendants cannot manufacture jurisdiction by raising a defense or counterclaim based on federal law.

Section 1331 requires the well-pleaded complaint to raise a question of federal law.

Adams v. SCTF · filed 2024-08-20

But “a cause of action arises under federal law only when the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint raises questions of federal law.” Payne, 2023 WL 6130126 at *2 (quoting Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63 (1987)). The complaint is abstruse—perhaps deliberately—and it makes no mention of the FDCPA.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction requires a federal question on the face of a properly pleaded complaint; without a complaint to review, that jurisdiction is not established.

Samuels v. Russell-Ross · filed 2024-08-21

Here, there has been no complaint from Plaintiff, properly pleaded or otherwise, that the court may review to assess its jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; a federal counterclaim does not establish jurisdiction.

Glenville Homes III v. Cox · filed 2024-08-26

Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is present only when a federal question appears “on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded Complaint.” ... Federal counterclaims and defenses are “inadequate to confer federal jurisdiction,” and do not provide a basis for removal. ... Moreover, Ms. Cox’s counterclaims do not provide a basis for removal.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction only when a federal question appears on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.

American Express National Bank v. Scales · filed 2024-08-28

Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is present only when a federal question appears “on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded Complaint.”

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction when the plaintiff’s own statement of the cause of action shows that it is based on federal law.

Yancey v. Wells Fargo & Company · filed 2024-08-29

Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over “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) (cleaned up). Upon our review, we conclude that the district court properly found that it lacked jurisdiction over Yancey’s claims.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; a federal defense does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

WOLTZ v. GOOD · filed 2024-09-04

While Woltz asserts that the state courts have violated his constitutional rights in the conducting the proceeding, this asserts at best a federal defense to the landlord/tenant proceeding and there is no basis to conclude that a federal question is presented on the face of the state court plaintiff's complaint.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a later filing refers to a federal statute but clarifies that the pleaded claim is a state-law breach of contract claim.

Daniels v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC · filed 2024-09-05

The Memorandum [2-13] did not clarify that Plaintiffs’ claims in the original Complaint [2-2] were based on RESPA; if anything, it further clarified that Plaintiffs were asserting a state-law breach of contract claim and not a stand-alone federal claim.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction when a federal-law claim appears on the face of a well-pleaded complaint.

Vos v. LaRose · filed 2024-09-05

Federal subject-matter jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 when a claim arising under federal law is presented on the face of a well-pleaded complaint. ... No claim arising under federal law is discernible on the face of the complaint.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims merely because they refer to federal civil rights when the plaintiff disavows federal claims.

Washington v. City of St. Ann · filed 2024-09-24

Whether a claim arises under federal law is determined by the contents of a well pleaded complaint: “The rule makes the plaintiff the master of the claim; he or she may avoid federal jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on state law.” ... Both of these claims are based on state law even though they make reference to his civil rights.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint states only a state-law unlawful detainer claim.

(UD)(PS) Setrc, LLC v. Dulay · filed 2024-10-03

Because the Complaint indicates that the only cause of action is one for unlawful detainer, which arises solely under state law, this action does not arise under federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint relies exclusively on state law and the defendant points to federal issues in an administrative charge.

Dunbar v. Midland States Bancorp, Inc. · filed 2024-10-10

As MSB admits, Dunbar relied exclusively on state law in his petition, which he was entitled to do. ... Its attempt to establish federal question jurisdiction therefore fails.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a removing defendant claims that constitutional issues are implicated.

King v. Kreyer · filed 2024-10-16

Nor does the Court possess federal question jurisdiction despite Defendant’s attempt to manufacture it by claiming that federal constitutional considerations are implicated.

In a removed action, § 1331 federal-question jurisdiction depends on the face of the properly pleaded state-court complaint; without that complaint, the court cannot assess original jurisdiction.

BIRD BUYS HOUSES LLC v. BRYANT ROGERS · filed 2024-10-21

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” ... Accordingly, without the underlying state court complaint, this Court cannot properly assess whether original jurisdiction exists under the well-pleaded complaint rule.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; federal defenses raised in a notice of removal do not establish jurisdiction.

VMC REO, LLC v. Whitlow · filed 2024-10-28

While Defendant references federal law and the U.S. Constitution as part of her defenses in the notice of removal, these assertions are insufficient to create federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a federal question appears on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint, including at removal.

North Texas Natural Select Material, LLC v. City of Denison, Texas · filed 2024-10-31

The presence or absence of federal question jurisdiction is governed by the well-pleaded complaint rule, which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint. ... Thus, because Plaintiff plead a federal question on the face of its Petition, the court had jurisdiction at the time of removal.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the complaint, rather than as an anticipated defense.

Brown v. Horizon Air · filed 2024-11-01

To qualify, a federal question must be presented on the face of the complaint, not as an anticipated defense.

Section 1331 does not permit federal-question jurisdiction based on a federal defense, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim.

LVNV Funding LLC v. Gatlin · filed 2024-11-08

As such, federal question jurisdiction cannot be based on a defense, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim raising a federal question.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of a properly pleaded complaint.

Murillo-Esparza v. Bar 20 Dairy Farms LLC · filed 2024-11-13

Plaintiff’s complaint falls far short of complying with the well-pleaded complaint rule.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; a defendant’s references to federal law do not create jurisdiction.

Bolero v. McCarley · filed 2024-11-13

There is no federal-question jurisdiction over this action. United States District Courts have original federal-question jurisdiction “of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Federal question jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). ... McCarley’s mere references to federal law cannot create a federal question that gives this court jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.

Wa He Lut Indian School v. Smith · filed 2024-11-19

Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 “exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” ... The School’s Complaint includes only state law claims. Dkt. 1-3. There is no federal question on its face.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a defendant’s allegations cannot supply it.

Bolero v. McCarley · filed 2024-11-19

But, what McCarley is alleging is not relevant to this court’s determination regarding subject matter jurisdiction. “As a general rule, federal question jurisdiction is based on the specific law on which plaintiff bases its complaint. The well-established rule under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 requires that a federal question ‘must be disclosed upon the face of the complaint, unaided by the answer…and ‘the complaint itself will not avail as a basis of jurisdiction in so far as it goes beyond a statement of the plaintiff’s cause of action and anticipates or replies to a probable defense.’” U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n ND v. Strand, 243 F. Supp. 2d 1139, 1141 (D. Or. 2002) (quoting Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 415 U.S. 125, 127 (1974)). No exception to this rule applies here.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; anticipated federal defenses and counterclaims do not establish jurisdiction.

Johnson v. Tides at Walnut Park · filed 2024-11-19

Accordingly, to the extent Defendant’s anticipated defenses and counterclaims may be based on alleged violations of federal law, those defenses and counterclaims cannot provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the complaint; claims that could arise under either federal or state law do not establish federal-question jurisdiction without a showing that the complaint asserts a federal claim.

(PC) Thomas v. Hernandez · filed 2024-12-10

At issue here, is whether the Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Here, defendants have failed to establish that the complaint sets forth a federal claim. ... While a due process claim and a retaliation claim could arise under federal law, such claims could also potentially arise under state law.

Section 1331 supports federal-question jurisdiction on removal when the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint raises a federal question.

First American Bank & Trust v. Marcantel · filed 2024-12-12

Moreover, there is no basis for concluding that the state court petition, which only pleads state-law claims for enforcement of a promissory note and mortgage governed by state law, raises a federal question pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Whether a civil action is removable upon the basis of federal question jurisdiction is to be determined by the allegations of the plaintiff’s “well-pleaded complaint” as of the time of removal.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Christian-Hart · filed 2024-12-12

For purposes of § 1331, the Court applies the well-pleaded complaint rule to determine whether a claim arises under federal law. ... The complaint does not assert a cause of action under the United States Constitution or any federal statute, nor does Plaintiff’s right to foreclose depend on the resolution of any federal issue.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction when a liberally construed pro se complaint alleges constitutional violations on its face.

COLBERT v. OGILVIE · filed 2024-12-16

That much is enough for a finding of federal question jurisdiction under the well- pleaded complaint rule.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the complaint; a federal defense alone does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Midland Credit Management Inc v. Casimir · filed 2024-12-20

While federal “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal questions must appear on the face of the complaint for a party to remove to federal court; even federal defenses to an action will not, independently, allow for removal. ... Plaintiff Midland Credit Management, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) does not state a federal claim in its small claims complaint. ... Accordingly, the Court lacks original jurisdiction over the claims in this case.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction only when a federal question appears on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.

Ennis-White v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company · filed 2024-12-30

The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the plaintiff’s complaint; a federal-law defense does not establish jurisdiction.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Robinson · filed 2025-01-10

Federal question jurisdiction does not exist here because Wells Fargo’s complaint brings only state law claims for declaratory relief, cancellation of instrument, quiet title, and slander of title. To the extent Defendants seek to raise defenses based on their due process rights or the FDCPA, this does not establish federal subject matter jurisdiction as the Court has previously held.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; a defense or counterclaim cannot establish federal-question jurisdiction.

(PS)(UD) Newrez LLC dba Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing v. Ussery · filed 2025-01-10

Federal question jurisdiction therefore cannot be based on a defense, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim raising a federal question. ... By failing to attach the Complaint, Defendant has not met her burden.

Federal-question jurisdiction requires a federal question on the face of the properly pleaded complaint; claims involving only state law and local zoning regulations do not qualify.

Philippou v. Town of Miami Lakes Planning and Zoning Building · filed 2025-01-15

Rather, the Amended Complaint does not present any federal question. Rather, the claim involve the interpretation and application of Florida law and local zoning regulations.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the complaint, with the federal law supplying jurisdiction made clear.

Baldwin v. Nevada Attorney for Injured Workers Nevada · filed 2025-01-29

Plaintiff is reminded that federal question jurisdiction requires the federal question to be presented on the face of her complaint. This means that it must be clear which statute or statutes provides this Court with jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction based on federal claims in an EEOC charge merely mentioned in a complaint that proceeds exclusively under state law.

Lambert v. International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers · filed 2025-02-04

Under these circumstances, the federal-law claims raised in the Plaintiffs EEOC Charge of Discrimination are not part of the complaint and do not confer federal-question jurisdiction on this Court.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of a well-pleaded complaint; a reference to a federal statute without a federal cause of action does not suffice.

Kenny v. iFinance LLC · filed 2025-02-04

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal jurisdiction is cabined by the well-pleaded complaint rule, which provides “that the federal question must appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint and may not enter in anticipation of a defense.” ... Thus, in the absence of an alleged federal cause of action, and with only a single allegation in the FAC referencing a federal statute, the Court concludes this case does not present a federal question.

Section 1331 requires a properly pleaded complaint to present a federal question on its face.

(PS) Macallister v. CALPERS · filed 2025-02-06

Here, the FAC does not present a federal question on the face of a properly pleaded complaint. ... Accordingly, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the complaint; references to federal law that support state claims do not themselves plead a federal cause of action.

Reynolds v. Saddleback Valley Unified School District · filed 2025-02-20

The references to federal law appeared to support state claims rather than to assert independent federal claims.

Section 1331 does not permit counterclaims or crossclaims in a defendant’s answer to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Aurora Loan Services LLC v. Shephard · filed 2025-03-03

Accordingly, Defendant’s counterclaims and “crossclaims” cannot provide the basis for federal question jurisdiction because those allegations appear in Defendant’s answer.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction only when a federal question appears on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint.

Amte v. Equifax Information Services LLC · filed 2025-03-03

Under the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” federal question jurisdiction is present only when “a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” ... No federal question appears on the face of the Complaint, which asserts a single state law claim.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the complaint; allegations that state no federal claim do not establish jurisdiction.

Bruce v. A C A Residential L L C · filed 2025-03-10

“If, on its face, the plaintiff's complaint raises no issue of federal law, federal question jurisdiction is lacking.”16 Put simply, taking Plaintiff’s alleged facts as true, federal subject matter jurisdiction does not exist in this suit.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of a properly pleaded complaint; conclusory assertions that federal statutes were violated do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Gonzales v. JP Morgan Chase, N.A. · filed 2025-03-14

“The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). ... Some sections of some of these statutes may provide a private right of action, but Plaintiffs only make a conclusory assertion that these statutes are broadly violated.

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

Huber v. Born · filed 2025-03-19

Huber has failed to plead a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 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). Huber’s complaint does not state a claim that arises under federal law.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of a well-pleaded complaint; unsupported assertions of tribal land ownership do not establish federal jurisdiction.

Bey v. Sheriff, City of St. Louis · filed 2025-03-20

Additionally, the face of the complaint indicates no federal question jurisdiction over this matter relating to plaintiff’s unsubstantiated assertion that he is the chief of a Native American tribe. Plaintiff’s unsupported allegations that he is a tribal landowner are unverified and do not support federal jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a removed case when the state court complaint asserts no federal claim.

Jobson-Larkin v. Islam · filed 2025-04-08

Therefore, this case was improperly removed on the basis of federal question jurisdiction because the state court complaint did not assert a federal claim.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint.

Watts v. Ohio Department of Insurance · filed 2025-04-10

Federal question jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint. ... Plaintiffs complaint does not allege a discernible cause of action arising under federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a receiver’s state-law complaint references the federal order appointing the receiver.

Castleman As Receiver for Eminifx, Inc. v. Interactive Brokers LLC · filed 2025-04-10

Hence, references in the Complaint to the federal court order appointing the Receiver is insufficient to create federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a defendant’s federal defenses or counterclaims do not establish federal-question jurisdiction on removal.

Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Truehill · filed 2025-04-14

In short, federal defenses and counterclaims to a State court executory proceeding do not establish federal question jurisdiction in a removed action.

Section 1331 gives a federal court jurisdiction when a federal question appears on the face of a properly pleaded complaint.

Rhine v. DML Capital Inc · filed 2025-04-18

The Court concludes that it is clear from the face of Plaintiff’s complaint that there is a federal question, and therefore this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the properly pleaded complaint.

Smith v. Akkinola · filed 2025-04-22

The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint. ... No matter how liberally construed, the Court cannot independently discern from the face of the Complaint what federal question is presented.

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the plaintiff’s complaint; a defendant’s reliance on federal law as a defense does not establish jurisdiction.

(UD)(PS) NewRez LLC v. Ussery · filed 2025-04-24

Defendant’s reliance on federal law in defending against Plaintiff’s state law claim does not suffice to confer jurisdiction on this Court because the defensive invocation of federal law cannot form the basis of this Court’s jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a defendant’s defense or counterclaim cannot supply federal-question jurisdiction.

Chiang v. Afifi · filed 2025-04-25

That is, a defendant may not invoke federal subject-matter jurisdiction based on a defense or counterclaim that they raise independently of the plaintiff’s complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; anticipated defenses cannot establish federal-question jurisdiction.

LARS LLC v. McCoo · filed 2025-04-28

As explained above, however, the plaintiff is the “master of the claim,” and McCoo’s anticipated defenses cannot provide a basis to support removal upon federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires the well-pleaded complaint to arise under federal law or present a substantial question of federal law.

Navy Federal Credit Union v. Toliver · filed 2025-05-14

The well-pleaded complaint does not arise under federal law and does not give rise to a substantial question of federal law.

Section 1331 requires a federal question in the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; a defendant’s counterclaim cannot establish federal-question jurisdiction.

SCG MiMa Towers LLC v. Noble · filed 2025-05-16

Further, contrary to Defendants’ position, (see Mem. 2–3), their counterclaim is irrelevant for purposes of jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction based on a federal defense when the complaint presents only state-law claims.

Malagodi v. Nice · filed 2025-05-19

Under the “well-pleaded complaint” rule, a defense asserting a violation of federal law does not create removability under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint mentions a federal statute in its factual background but identifies only state-law causes of action.

Rainey v. Manufacturers & Traders Trust Company · filed 2025-05-19

To summarize, I hold that Plaintiffs’ passing references to the FDCPA in the factual background section of their state court petition do not state a federal claim because Plaintiffs have specifically identified the causes of action they assert and the FDCPA is not included among them.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.

Blue Foundry Bank v. Arsenis · filed 2025-05-20

As the District Court properly reasoned in its first remand to state court, the Bank’s complaint was limited to state law foreclosure claims. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987) (providing that federal question jurisdiction “exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint”). ... Thus, the District Court lacked federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal claim in the plaintiff’s complaint; a defendant’s federal counterclaim cannot create federal-question jurisdiction.

Bellwhether Renton Sage LLC v. Brin · filed 2025-05-28

But removability “cannot be created by [a] defendant pleading a counter-claim presenting a federal question.” ... Plaintiff’s complaint does not plead any claims arising under federal law. Dkt. # 1-1. Thus, there is no federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; a defense, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim cannot supply it.

Mitchell v. Rutaganira · filed 2025-05-30

Federal question jurisdiction therefore cannot be based on a defense, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim raising a federal question.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a federal issue appears only as an anticipated defense rather than on the face of the well-pleaded complaint.

City of Covington, Kentucky v. Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc. · filed 2025-06-05

The Court is convinced that the City’s well-pleaded complaint does not contain a federal issue on its face, and that Duke Energy’s reference to the Contract Clause is merely a possible or anticipated defense.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a federal defense or counterclaim does not establish jurisdiction.

Edge Property Management Inc v. Little · filed 2025-06-10

Therefore, any right based in federal law that Little claims by way of a defense or counterclaim does not vest this Court with original jurisdiction over this unlawful detainer case.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; state-law claims alone do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

TELECO Inc v. Mutolo · filed 2025-06-10

Plaintiffs raise only state law claims and there are no allegations to support a finding that a federal question is presented on the face of Plaintiffs’ complaint. ... Based on the foregoing, the Court finds no basis for subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.

Bigfoot Ventures, LTD v. Knighton · filed 2025-06-18

Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, an action “arises under” the laws of the United States only where “a federal question is presented on the face of plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392. Here, no federal question is presented on the face of Bigfoot’s Complaint or FAC, which assert only claims under state law.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of a properly pleaded complaint.

Scott v. Hammond · filed 2025-06-24

Federal question jurisdiction is determined “by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” ... Plaintiff has not properly pled a federal question.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint; federal claims raised only in a removal notice do not establish jurisdiction.

Berrang v. Wright · filed 2025-06-30

For a court to exercise jurisdiction under § 1331, the federal question must appear on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint. ... While Wright’s notice of removal alleges that Berrang and others violated various federal laws, those claims do not appear on the face of Berrang’s complaint and thus do not give this court subject matter jurisdiction over the partition suit.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the complaint; affirmative defenses and counterclaims do not establish federal question jurisdiction for removal.

Ally Bank v. Johnson · filed 2025-07-01

There are no federal causes of action asserted in the Complaint. ... And Defendant’s affirmative defenses and counterclaims cannot be a basis for removal here.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a defendant’s counterclaim cannot establish federal-question jurisdiction.

(UD)(PS) Sandhu v. Lacewell · filed 2025-07-07

Thus, while Defendant seems to contend in the Notice that his counterclaim includes federal constitutional and statutory issues, this assertion related to his counterclaim cannot be considered in evaluating whether a federal question appears on the face of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; a claim arising entirely under state real property law does not qualify.

NORE-RAHF V North Hills Apts LLC v. Horsley · filed 2025-07-07

While Horsley invokes federal question jurisdiction, ECF 1, at 2, the state court complaint makes clear that the action arises entirely under state real property law, see ECF 2.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; a federal defense cannot establish jurisdiction.

(UD)(PS)NACO, LLC v. Card · filed 2025-07-14

To the extent Defendant argues Plaintiffs discriminated against him because of his race, such an argument constitutes a defense, which cannot form the basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law to appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint.

Hosseinipour v. Ohio Edison Jersey Line · filed 2025-07-15

Federal subject-matter jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 when a claim arising under federal law is presented on the face of a well-pleaded complaint.

Section 1331 requires the federal question to appear on the face of the complaint; a defendant’s constitutional defense cannot supply it.

House v. Coggeshall · filed 2025-07-15

Here, the state court complaint presents a quiet title action arising under Montana law, (Doc. 1-2), and although Orr has responded with constitutional claims, (e.g., Doc. 6 at 2), “the federal question on which jurisdiction is premised cannot be supplied via a defense; rather, the federal question must ‘be disclosed upon the face of the complaint, unaided by the answer,’” Provincial Gov t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 415 U.S. 125, 127-28 (1974)).

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of a properly pleaded complaint.

Dunn v. Department of Consumer Affair · filed 2025-07-21

The presence or absence of federal question jurisdiction is governed by the “well-pleaded complaint rule.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Under this rule, “federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Id.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; a defense cannot establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Greco v. O'Donnell · filed 2025-07-22

The CDA is a defense of immunity and does not provide a private right of action. Neither defenses nor counterclaims are considered in evaluating whether a federal question appears on the face of a Plaintiff's complaint. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60, 129 S. Ct. 1262, 173 L. Ed. 2d 206 (2009). Therefore, the Court finds that it lacks federal question jurisdiction under the Communications Decency Act.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of a properly pleaded complaint.

(PS) Creel v. Amazon.com, Inc. · filed 2025-07-22

Federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 arises in two situations. ... To assess federal-question jurisdiction, courts apply the “well-pleaded complaint” rule under which “federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” ... Because there is no basis for federal jurisdiction evident in the complaint, it will be dismissed with leave to amend.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear in the plaintiff’s complaint; a defendant’s characterization of the suit cannot create federal-question jurisdiction.

MELVIN v. LOWTHER-MERTZ · filed 2025-07-23

But federal question jurisdiction is determined solely by the plaintiff’s complaint—nothing more.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint; an anticipated federal defense does not establish jurisdiction.

Parks Edge At McKinnie Commons v. Mauldin · filed 2025-07-25

Although Mauldin may claim that Plaintiff’s action violates federal law in some manner that is indiscernible from his Notice of Removal, it is Plaintiff’s Complaint that matters here—not his anticipated defenses. There simply is no federal question presented.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the complaint; a state-law negligence claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction merely because it is filed on a § 1983 form.

Woods v. Woosley · filed 2025-07-28

The “well-pleaded complaint” rule requires that “a federal question be presented on the face of the complaint.” Mich. S. R.R. Co. v. Branch & St. Joseph Cntys., 287 F.3d 568, 573 (6th Cir. 2002). While Plaintiff filed the complaint on a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 prisoner complaint form, he does not allege that Defendant Woosley violated his constitutional rights or any other federal right. Rather, he asserts a state-law claim of negligence. Therefore, the complaint fails to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not permit a defendant to create federal-question jurisdiction by raising federal issues in a removal petition when the plaintiff’s complaint presents none.

Parks v. Woodmont Ramapo LLC · filed 2025-08-01

And Parks cannot manufacture federal-question jurisdiction by referencing ostensible federal issues in his removal petition.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of a properly pleaded complaint; merely naming a federal statute as a basis for jurisdiction is insufficient.

Siganporia v. Shreyas (AKA Shreyas VA) · filed 2025-08-06

It is true that original “federal question” jurisdiction exists in a civil action “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. However, “[t]he presence or absence of federal–question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well–pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” In re NOS Commc’ns, MDL No. 1357, 495 F.3d 1052, 1057 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987)). Here, although Plaintiff invokes the CFAA in the “subject matter jurisdiction” portion of the Complaint, there is no apparent claim under the CFAA against any Defendant.

Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction depends on the plaintiff’s well-pleaded claims; a defendant’s counterclaims or affirmative defenses do not establish it.

Gordon v. Scott · filed 2025-08-07

Even if that were true, it does not alter the remand analysis, which looks to the plaintiff’s well-pleaded claims, not a defendant’s counterclaims or affirmative defenses.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction when federal claims appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint.

Raphiel v. Pitchford · filed 2025-08-12

The court has original jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s civil action because his well- pleaded complaint plainly asserted federal claims on its face.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the well-pleaded complaint; a defense cannot create federal-question jurisdiction.

Silva v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals · filed 2025-08-13

The use of a defense cannot be used to form the basis of a federal question for purposes of jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts only state-law claims, even if a potential defense invokes federal law.

Coastal Capital Group, LLC v. Copeland · filed 2025-08-14

Here, the OSC Response appears to describe a potential defense that invokes federal law but provides no basis for the Court to find removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1441. As the Court previously described in the OSC, subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 appears to be irrelevant here since the Complaint is entirely based on state law; it does not invoke any issues of federal law. ... Therefore, the Court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint affirmatively alleges a claim under the U.S. Constitution.

Richard v. Google LLC · filed 2025-08-15

This claim “satisfies the well-pleaded complaint rule.”

Section 1331 generally requires a federal claim to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint for federal-question jurisdiction.

SETTLEMENT OF THE CESTUI QUE VIE TRUST AND ESTATE · filed 2025-08-21

With only a few exceptions—none of which pertains here—the well-pleaded complaint rule restricts the exercise of federal question jurisdiction to instances in which a federal claim is made manifest within the four corners of the plaintiff’s complaint.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of a properly pleaded complaint.

Norman v. Specialized Towing · filed 2025-08-22

For purposes of § 1331, the Court applies the well-pleaded complaint rule to determine whether a claim arises under federal law.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; federal counterclaims do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Reddy v. American Express National Bank · filed 2025-08-28

Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is proper “only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). As the plaintiff in the state court cases, AMEX only filed state law breach of contract claims against Mr. Reddy and related defendants. To the extent Mr. Reddy and the Plaintiff entities assert federal law counterclaims against various AMEX officials in the Amended Complaint, the counterclaims fail to confer federal question jurisdiction over this matter.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.

Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey v. Arsenis · filed 2025-09-02

Here, Horizon’s state court complaint, on its face, did not raise a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal claim on the face of the complaint to support removal.

Sifre-Ortega v. Jimenez · filed 2025-09-05

Therefore, the lack of a federal claim on the face of the complaint is fatal to defendants’ attempt to remove this case to federal court.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A. v. Mullady · filed 2025-09-05

To determine whether a federal question exists, courts look to the well-pleaded complaint rule. ... Here, Plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint does not present a federal question.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the well-pleaded complaint; federal citations added in a notice of removal do not establish jurisdiction.

Woodly v. Village Capital Investments, LLC · filed 2025-09-05

Because the Court may only look at the face of the well-pleaded complaint to determine its jurisdiction, see Caterpillar Inc., 482 U.S. at 392, the additional citations to federal law in the notice of removal are inapposite. The Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over these claims.

Section 1331 generally requires a federal question on the face of a properly pleaded complaint.

Lopez v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · filed 2025-09-08

Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is generally governed by the “well- pleaded complaint” rule, which allows for federal jurisdiction “only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987).

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint; a defendant’s reliance on federal law does not create federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law claim.

Sequoia Equities-Hidden Hills v. Gomez · filed 2025-09-09

The presence or absence of federal question jurisdiction is governed by the well-pleaded complaint rule, which provides that federal question jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of plaintiffs properly pleaded complaint. ... Here, Plaintiff's complaint does not allege or plead any claim raising a federal question. Therefore, Plaintiff's complaint fails to plead that this Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal question to appear on the face of the well-pleaded complaint; a veiled challenge to a federal trademark registration does not suffice.

Superior Fence and Construction, Inc. v. McGraw Enterprises, L.L.C. · filed 2025-09-17

If, as McGraw admits, Superior Fence’s prerogative to attack McGraw’s license is “veiled” in the Amended Complaint, paragraph five’s reference to Lynx’s federal trademark does not present a federal question that appears on the face of Superior Fence’s complaint.