28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over an action invoking a federal RICO claim.

Lewis v. Hatem · filed 2020-03-31

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal question jurisdiction exists for “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Here, Plaintiffs invokes federal question jurisdiction under RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). (Compl. § 1.) As such, this Court has subject- matter jurisdiction over this action based on federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a federal issue apparent on the face of the complaint and a federal law creating a cause of action for the plaintiff.

Stevens v. F.B.I. · filed 2020-03-30

In order for a plaintiff to establish federal question jurisdiction it must be (1) clear on the ... face of the complaint an issue of federal law exists and (2) that federal law created a cause of action for the plaintiff to seek relief.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when an amended complaint asserts only state statutory and common-law claims.

DOLL v. ISAACS AND COHEN, LLC · filed 2020-04-02

After removing the Titie VII claims from her amended complaint, Ms. Doll’s remaining claims are brought under state statutory and common law. Therefore, Ms. Doll’s amended complaint does not invoke federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims solely for medical negligence under state law.

Stutts v. West Tennessee Healthcare Inc. · filed 2020-04-02

Taking at face value Stutts’s assertion that she is suing the Defendants only for medical negligence under Tennessee law, there is no federal question jurisdiction in this case.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts only a breach-of-contract claim with no federal question.

Jones v. A Buyer s Choice Home Inspections, ltd. · filed 2020-04-03

The Complaint [Dkt. 1-2] asserts a single cause of action for breach of contract, so federal question jurisdiction plainly does not exist.

Section 1331 requires a federal question, and a complaint that alleges no facts stating a federal claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

O'Connor v. S.O.M.E. · filed 2020-04-07

The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited and is set forth generally at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under those statutes, federal jurisdiction is available only when a “federal question” is presented or the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. ... The plaintiff has neither identified the basis of federal jurisdiction nor alleged sufficient facts to state a federal claim against the private defendants.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint raises only common-law fraud and negligence claims.

Brooks v. Henry · filed 2020-04-08

In addition, Plaintiff raises only common law claims for fraud and negligence; therefore there is no federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a dispute governed by the CISG, a treaty of the United States.

Zodiac Seats US LLC (A.K.A. Weber Aircraft LLC) v. Oceanair Linhas Aereas, S.A. · filed 2020-04-08

Specifically, the Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the CISG, a treaty of the United States, governs the dispute in this case.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction merely because a complaint references federal copyright law.

Emrit v. Horus Music Video Distribution · filed 2020-04-10

Merely referencing “federal copyright law” is insufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a colorable claim arising under the Constitution or federal law; a complaint identifying no such basis does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Peterson v. Desert Springs Hospital · filed 2020-04-13

Upon review of Plaintiff’s Notice, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed identify a statute in his Complaint where jurisdiction is independently conferred. See Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513 (2006) (“A plaintiff properly invokes [Section] 1331 jurisdiction when she pleads a colorable claim ‘arising under’ the Constitution or laws of the United States.”).

Section 1331 gives a federal district court subject matter jurisdiction over a § 1983 complaint because it presents a federal question.

BAILEY v. Ebbert · filed 2020-04-13

Specifically, the Court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the proposed second amended complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 because the action concerns a federal question. See 28 U.S.C. §1331.

Section 1331 requires a federal question, and a complaint that identifies no federal basis for jurisdiction and alleges insufficient facts to state a federal claim does not establish it.

Boyle v. Publishers Clearing House · filed 2020-04-14

The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited and is set forth generally at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under those statutes, federal jurisdiction is available only when a “federal question” is presented or the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. ... Plaintiff has neither identified the basis of federal jurisdiction nor alleged sufficient facts to state a federal claim against the private defendants.

Section 1331 jurisdiction over an FLSA claim does not depend on whether the plaintiff can prove FLSA coverage; coverage is a merits issue.

Harlas v. Barn LLC, The · filed 2020-04-15

Upon further review, the Court concludes this is not a matter of subject matter jurisdiction. Instead, the issue is whether there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Plaintiff can prove not only that the FLSA applies but that Defendants have violated it.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law; a claim arising only under state law does not establish it.

Vaughn v. Lear · filed 2020-04-15

As a federal district court, this court has subject matter jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law or for claims where there is diversity of citizenship between the parties. 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 28 U.S.C. § 1332. In the amended complaint, Mr. Vaughn asserts only a claim of defamation, which arises under state law, and offers no suggestions of a diversity of citizenship between the parties. Consequently, Mr. Vaughn has not established that the court has subject matter jurisdiction over his claim, and he may not proceed with this case.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff to allege that the defendant violated federal law or the Constitution to invoke federal-question jurisdiction.

Henderson v. Oregon Department of Human Services · filed 2020-04-15

To invoke federal question jurisdiction under § 1331, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant has violated a federal law or the Constitution.

Section 1331 requires a claim to arise under federal law; allegations of retaliation over copyright licensing negotiations do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Modu v. Notorious B.I.G. LLC · filed 2020-04-16

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. ... Such allegations of retaliation in connection with licensing negotiations do not arise under federal copyright law. Plaintiff thus does not establish federal question jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction when a well-pleaded claim arises under the Constitution or federal law.

Mestayer v. New Orleans City · filed 2020-04-17

A plaintiff properly invokes federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 when he pleads a claim “arising under” the Constitution or the laws of the United States.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over an FLSA claim seeking liability even when that claim supplies no additional damages.

Corrales v. AJMM Trucking Corp. · filed 2020-04-20

Jurisdiction over the FLSA claims is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and jurisdiction over the NYLL claims is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. While Plaintiff appears to only seek damages based upon state law claims,1 that does not preclude the Court from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. Plaintiff’s pursuit of liability under the FLSA—even if the FLSA does not provide for additional damages—supplies the Court’s jurisdiction over the matter.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a medical malpractice claim that does not arise under federal law.

Anderson v. Lederer · filed 2020-04-21

As the instant action does not appear to arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no violation of the Constitution or a federal statute and no federal question appears on its face.

Glenn v. Rosel · filed 2020-04-21

Plaintiff alleges no specific violation of the Constitution or federal statute, and no federal question jurisdiction is evident from the face of the complaint.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint presents a federal question; a passing reference to the Constitution does not establish it.

O'Connor v. Government of the District of Columbia · filed 2020-04-23

The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited and is set forth generally at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under those statutes, federal jurisdiction is available when a “federal question” is presented or the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. ... The plaintiff’s complaint is not based on a federal question, notwithstanding its passing reference, see Compl. at 2, to the first paragraph of the United States Constitution.

Section 1331 requires the complaint to identify a claim or question arising under federal law; general references to the Constitution or equitable jurisdiction do not suffice.

AKINFADERIN-ABUA v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION · filed 2020-04-23

Nor is a federal-law claim or question stated. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Texaco Inc., 415 U.S. 125, 127–128 (1974) (well- pleaded-complaint rule governs whether a case “arises under” federal law for purposes of § 1331). This complaint speaks in generalities about the U.S. Constitution or the equitable jurisdiction of the courts. It does not identify, factually or legally, any cause of action arising under federal law.

Section 1331 requires a constitutional claim or a federal statutory basis for federal-question jurisdiction.

Duhart v. Clement · filed 2020-04-24

Additionally, Plaintiff fails to identify any constitutional claim or federal statute which would provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

A legal malpractice claim arising solely under state law does not establish federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Sweat v. Lutrell · filed 2020-04-24

First, the federal district courts have jurisdiction “of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. As Sweat clearly states that he is suing the Defendants for legal malpractice, a claim arising under Tennessee law, there is no federal question jurisdiction in this case.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the asserted federal criminal statute creates no private right of action and the complaint raises no other federal issue.

Schmaltz v. McKissic · filed 2020-04-27

The federal criminal statute he proposes as a basis for federal question jurisdiction does not provide a private right of action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no constitutional or federal statutory violation and no federal question appears on its face.

Glenn v. Vanraj · filed 2020-04-29

Plaintiff fails to allege the case is one “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff alleges no specific violation of the Constitution or federal statute, and no federal question jurisdiction is evident from the face of the complaint.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to establish a federal question to invoke federal-question jurisdiction.

Razavi v. Target Stores · filed 2020-05-04

The Court concludes that the initial complaint does not adequately invoke federal subject matter jurisdiction. It establishes neither a federal question nor diversity of citizenship.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint identifies neither an applicable federal statute nor a substantial question of federal law.

Greene v. JPMorgan Chase, National Association · filed 2020-05-04

Here, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to identify either a federal statute applicable to his claim or substantial question of federal law.4 In the absence of a cognizable federal question, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a claim about billing for services that does not arise under federal law.

Moore v. Right Now Plumbing · filed 2020-05-05

To the extent that plaintiff is attempting to bring this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal question jurisdiction does not exist.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to allege that the action arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Wilson v. AHEPA Management Company · filed 2020-05-06

There is no properly alleged federal questions jurisdiction because the Complaint does not allege that this action “aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 bases federal-question jurisdiction on the nature of the claim to be removed, rather than the manner in which state proceedings are conducted.

IPPOLITO VS. TOBIA IPPOLITO (FM-14-0147-13, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) · filed 2020-05-08

But federal question jurisdiction is not based on the manner in which state proceedings are conducted, only the nature of the claim removed.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint identifies no federal basis and alleges insufficient facts to state a federal claim.

Bey v. Hecm · filed 2020-05-08

Plaintiff has neither identified the basis of federal jurisdiction nor alleged sufficient facts to state a federal claim against the seemingly private defendants.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no violation of the Constitution or a federal statute and no federal question appears on its face.

Glenn v. Earl · filed 2020-05-08

Plaintiff alleges no specific violation of the Constitution or federal statute, and no federal question jurisdiction is evident from the face of the complaint.

Section 1331 gives a district court federal-question jurisdiction when a plaintiff makes a nonfrivolous claim for relief under the U.S. Constitution or a federal statute; state-law claims alone do not suffice.

Bizzarro v. First National Bank · filed 2020-05-11

No federal statute or constitutional provision served as the basis for any claim in this case; federal question jurisdiction therefore did not lie.

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

Lay-Styles v. Real Time Resolutions, Inc. · filed 2020-05-11

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

Section 1331 ordinarily does not confer federal-question jurisdiction without a federal cause of action, except when relief necessarily depends on resolving a substantial question of federal law.

Diamond v. U.S. Bank N.A. · filed 2020-05-11

But in the absence of any cause of action under federal law, federal question jurisdiction ordinarily does not exist. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (2018). Although a rarely applicable exception can be made when “the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law,” the Diamonds have identified no such question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint asserts only state-law claims and no federal claim.

Hastings v. Grundy · filed 2020-05-12

Because the complaint asserts no federal claim, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the federal question statute.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint invoking Title VII when that statute does not apply to the defendant.

Brooks v. Levy · filed 2020-05-13

Thus, it appears Ms. Brooks may not invoke this court’s federal question jurisdiction on the basis of a Title VII claim because the statute does not apply.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims that assert only state-law causes of action.

Schmitigal v. Twohig · filed 2020-05-13

Plaintiffs’ complaint asserts state law causes- of-action such that the court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint, read in substance at the time of removal, raises a substantial federal question.

TallBear v. Soldi Inc. · filed 2020-05-14

Here, at the time of removal, the Court finds that the Amended Complaint raised a substantial federal question both in regards to the unpaid wages claim under Minnesota law and claims for express overtime relief under the FLSA.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a breach-of-contract claim merely because a federal court entered a related consent judgment.

City of Highland Park, Mich. v. EPA · filed 2020-05-18

Federal-question jurisdiction gives district courts jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... But that principle alone does not create jurisdiction over Highland Park’s breach-of-contract claim.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint seeks a declaration that defendants violated federal constitutional rights and federal laws.

BONILLA v. AMERICAN HERITAGE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION · filed 2020-05-19

Ms. Bonilla presents a federal question in the State Court Action including seeking a declaratory judgment Defendants violated her federal constitutional rights and the “laws of the United States.”

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction only when the complaint alleges a claim arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Glenn v. Jackey · filed 2020-05-19

Although Plaintiff alleges the court has jurisdiction pursuant to federal question, he fails to allege the case is one “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff alleges no specific violation of the Constitution or federal statute, and no federal question jurisdiction is evident from the face of the complaint.

A violation of state law alone does not give a federal court federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Del Rio v. LaPorte County Sheriff Dept · filed 2020-05-19

... and the court lacks jurisdiction to preside over a State law claim against these defendants. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question); 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity of citizenship).

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction for claims arising under the Constitution or federal statutes, and a complaint that identifies no constitutional or statutory basis does not support that jurisdiction.

Guidry v. Waveland Inc · filed 2020-05-21

Section 1331 confers jurisdiction to hear cases “arising under” the Constitution and federal statutes. However, neither Guidry’s complaint nor his opposition identify any Constitutional or statutory basis for his claims, and thus do not support federal question jurisdiction under section 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no claim arising under federal law or a constitutional right.

Johnson v. Norinsberg · filed 2020-05-21

Plaintiff’s claims do not arise under any federal law or constitutional right. Thus, the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over his claims under the federal question statute.

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

Stoddard v. Baeta · filed 2020-05-26

Here, federal question jurisdiction does not exist under Section 1331 because Stoddard has not identified a cause of action under federal law.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over breach-of-contract and promissory-estoppel claims that do not arise under the U.S. Constitution or a federal statute.

Meiburg v. Savoie · filed 2020-05-27

This Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over Meiburg’s complaint because his complaint alleges breach of contract and promissory estoppel, which do not arise under the U.S. Constitution or federal statute.

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

PRADEL v. VAH LYONS EMPLOYEES FEDERAL CREDIT UNION · filed 2020-05-27

Because Plaintiff has not stated a claim based on a federal question. the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to establish the Court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to allege that the action arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Taylor v. Robles · filed 2020-05-27

There is no properly alleged federal-question jurisdiction because the Complaint does not allege that this action “aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

Section 1331 requires a colorable claim arising under federal law; merely citing the jurisdictional statute does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Greene v. JPMorgan Chase, National Association · filed 2020-05-27

Plaintiff’s mere incantation of Section 1331 in the Complaint, alone, does not create a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

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

Trinwith, Jeffery v. Frazier, Susan · filed 2020-05-28

The court plainly does not have jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as Trinwith has identified no federal claims in his complaint, nor can this court discern one from the facts alleged.

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

In re: Antonio P.F. da Cruz · filed 2020-05-29

Plaintiff has not alleged any viable federal claims as required for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 grants federal-question jurisdiction when a plaintiff asserts a claim arising under a federal statute, the Constitution, or a United States treaty.

Wiley v. West Gate Bank · filed 2020-05-29

Subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, commonly referred to as “federal question” jurisdiction, is proper when a plaintiff asserts a claim arising under a federal statute, the Constitution, or treaties of the United States. ... The allegations of Plaintiff’s Complaint do not present a “federal question,” nor does Plaintiff allege that he is a citizen of a different state than each Defendant.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when a claim arises under federal law, and a complaint without such a claim does not establish jurisdiction.

Jenkins v. New West Sports Medicine · filed 2020-05-29

The allegations of Jenkins’ Complaint do not establish the requisite “federal question” for the court to exercise jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction when a claim arises under a federal statute, the Constitution, or a United States treaty; medical malpractice allegations alone do not establish that jurisdiction.

Thompson v. Finnegan · filed 2020-05-29

Subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, commonly referred to as “federal question” jurisdiction, is proper when a plaintiff asserts a claim arising under a federal statute, the Constitution, or treaties of the United States. McLain v. Andersen Corp., 567 F.3d 956, 963 (8th Cir. 2009). The allegations of Plaintiff’s Complaint do not establish the requisite “federal question” for the court to exercise jurisdiction under § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a clearly presented federal question; a mere suggestion of one does not establish federal jurisdiction.

Rossmann v. Austin · filed 2020-06-01

“[F]ederal court jurisdiction must affirmatively appear clearly and distinctly. The mere suggestion of a federal question is not sufficient to establish the jurisdiction of federal courts.” Johnson v. Robinson, 576 F.3d 522, 522 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (citing Bilal v. Kaplan, 904 F.2d 14, 15 (8th Cir.1990) (per curiam)). Consequently, there is also no basis to support federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when an amended complaint removes the sole federal claim and asserts only state-law claims.

Nice v. City of Akron · filed 2020-06-04

Because Nice no longer asserts a federal cause of action, and because diversity jurisdiction is not applicable (as both Nice and the defendants are residents of Ohio), this Court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over this case.

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

Nair v. Copeland · filed 2020-06-05

None of the claims articulated against Defendant Doe #2 arise under federal law, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims arising solely under state law, even when filed on a § 1983 complaint form.

Forrest v. Moore · filed 2020-06-05

Notwithstanding his use of the § 1983 complaint form, Forrest clearly states he is suing the Defendants for medical malpractice, neglect, and lack of “due diligence.” There is, therefore, no federal question jurisdiction in this case.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to allege a claim arising under federal law to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Creamer v. Sherer · filed 2020-06-08

As currently pled, the complaint does not contain any allegation of a violation arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. It therefore appears from the allegations of the complaint that the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits jurisdiction over a state-law claim raising a substantial federal issue only if hearing it would preserve the congressionally approved balance between federal and state courts.

Shands Jacksonville Medical Center, Inc. v. Azar · filed 2020-06-10

For this case to come within this narrow jurisdictional exception, Shands must allege a federal issue that is: “(1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress.” Id. Even assuming, arguendo, that the first three factors are met, this Court lacks jurisdiction.

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

Kastner v. Tri State Eye · filed 2020-06-10

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 to review a state-court result based solely on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).

Knoll v. Pratt · filed 2020-06-11

First, the Complaint’s allegations do not invoke federal question jurisdiction. Although the Complaint asserts that Rule 60(b) gives the court jurisdiction, plaintiffs are incorrect. Rule 60(b) is a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. It applies only to actions already heard and decided by the federal court. It does not confer jurisdiction on the federal courts to review results in state court cases. Plaintiffs do not cite any federal statute in their Complaint. So, the court lacks federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff identifies no private cause of action arising under federal law.

Mazyck v. Robinson · filed 2020-06-11

However, Plaintiff fails to identify a private cause of action arising under federal law.

Section 1331 requires a federal-law basis for jurisdiction; a complaint identifying no federal law and alleging no state action for a possible § 1983 claim does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Salandich v. Milwaukee Rescue Mission · filed 2020-06-16

Although Salandich alleges that he is suing under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, he does not specify under which federal law he sues the Milwaukee Rescue Mission. ... Salandich alleges no facts that would indicate that the Milwaukee Rescue Mission acted under color of state law. Thus, jurisdiction is not proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a complaint raising a federal question even if the complaint fails to state a claim for relief.

McNiece v. Town of Yankeetown · filed 2020-06-16

Federal courts have jurisdiction to entertain actions that concern a federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, like McNiece’s complaint, which sought relief under the Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and based on unlawful conduct by a federal official, Bivens, 403 U.S. 388. When a complaint, like McNiece’s, alleges a federal question, “dismissal generally must be for failure to state a claim, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b), not for want of jurisdiction.” Marine Coatings of Ala., Inc. v. United States, 792 F.2d 1565, 1567 (11th Cir. 1986).

Section 1331 does not confer federal question jurisdiction merely because a claim touches an area of federal law.

Matheny v. Dayton General Hospital · filed 2020-06-17

Nor, the Court explained, does the mere fact that a plaintiff’s claims touch on an area of federal law, such as Social Security, provide a sufficient jurisdictional basis. Id. at 6. The Amended Complaint again asserts the Court may exercise federal question jurisdiction premised on “perjury involving Social Security.” ECF No. 6 at 5. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint identifies no other basis on which the Court could exercise subject matter jurisdiction. See id. at 1–144; ECF No. 8. For the reasons explained in the Court’s Order to Amend or Voluntarily Dismiss, this is insufficient.

Section 1331 requires a claim to arise under federal law; a medical malpractice claim without an identified federal basis does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Wilson v. Lewicky · filed 2020-06-19

Section 1331 provides that “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Plaintiff asserts a claim for medical malpractice, but he fails to identify how a medical malpractice claim arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Section 1331 requires a plaintiff invoking federal-question jurisdiction to plead sufficient facts showing that the suit belongs in federal court.

JOHNSON v. MERCY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH · filed 2020-06-19

Here, Plaintiff asserts that subject matter jurisdiction is premised on both diversity of the parties and federal question jurisdiction but she has not pled sufficient facts to demonstrate that her lawsuit is properly before this Court.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction only when the complaint presents a claim arising under federal law; allegations suggesting no federal claim do not satisfy it.

Glickstein v. InBev · filed 2020-06-25

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. ... 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 provide original jurisdiction over an attorney lien dispute that does not present a federal question.

GALLUCCIO v. PRIDE INDUSTRIES, INC. · filed 2020-06-29

It also does not appear that primary subject matter jurisdiction can be established under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the attorney lien dispute does not present a federal question.

Section 1331 grants jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law; a private dispute over estate distributions does not establish a federal question.

Marchant v. Munger · filed 2020-06-30

First, the Court sees no basis for a finding that subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s complaint exists. It does not raise a federal question, because it is a matter between private individuals who are not acting on behalf of a government entity.

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

HERRON v. GURALNICK · filed 2020-06-30

First, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case because Plaintiff asserts no federal claims and all parties are citizens of the State of New Jersey. As such, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under either 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or § 1332.

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

Glickstein v. Nadler · filed 2020-06-30

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 allege any facts suggesting that he can assert a federal claim.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law; a state law breach of contract claim over real property does not by itself present a federal question.

Thorp Family Estate & Trust v. Spataro · filed 2020-07-02

Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over complaints that present a federal question, meaning “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A state law breach of contract claim over real property is not by itself a federal question.

Section 1331 requires a federal question on the face of the complaint; allegations of state-law fraud alone do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Ireland v. Discover Employees · filed 2020-07-02

Plaintiff’s allegations of fraud in this action arise under state, not federal, law. Plaintiff has failed to plead a federal question on the face of his complaint.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the alleged facts support no federal cause of action or other federal question.

Vellon v. Coley · filed 2020-07-02

The Court agrees with the Report-Recommendation’s conclusion that jurisdiction also cannot be based on the existence of a federal question. ... In sum, the Amended Complaint asserts—and the Court’s own review unearths—no federal cause of action that permits recovery to Plaintiff on the facts as alleged.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law personal injury or medical malpractice claim that raises no federal question.

El Karmassi v. Brunz · filed 2020-07-02

El Karmassi’s complaint does not raise a federal question. ... El Karmassi raises a state-law claim for personal injury/medical malpractice.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a claim arises under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.

Velayo v. Fox · filed 2020-07-06

Federal question jurisdiction exists where claims arise under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.

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

Matulis v. Inland Power & Light Co · filed 2020-07-09

Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to allege a claim under the Constitution or federal law to support federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over claims arising under the Constitution or federal law, but not claims arising only under state law.

Banks v. LoGiudice · filed 2020-07-09

Under 28 U.S.C. §1331, a federal court has jurisdiction over a case only when the claims arise under the Constitution or federal law. When the plaintiff’s only claims arise under state law, a federal court does not have jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction based on a HUD voucher alone when the voucher creates no cause of action and relief does not depend on a question of federal law.

Barbero v. Davidson · filed 2020-07-14

With regard to the HUD voucher, plaintiff has failed to establish that the voucher alone creates a cause of action. Moreover, plaintiff's right to relief does not depend on a question of federal law regarding the voucher.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction when federal law creates the cause of action or a state-law right necessarily depends on construing federal law; a complaint must allege a basis for federal jurisdiction.

Nelson v. Mesa, City of · filed 2020-07-16

For federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides that district courts have jurisdiction over “all civil actions that arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” A case “arises under” federal law either where federal law creates the cause of action or “where the vindication of a right under state law necessarily turn[s] on some construction of federal law.” ... Plaintiff’s Complaint is devoid of citation to legal authority and any allegations regarding subject matter jurisdiction, the claims asserted, facts upon which those claims are based, or damages sustained. Plaintiff must: state the basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction, allege facts which support claims for relief, and explain how those allegations establish a violation of relevant legal authority.

Section 1331 provides no federal-question jurisdiction over a civil claim under a federal criminal statute that creates no private right of action.

Waad v. Movsesyan · filed 2020-07-20

So, because the Hobbs Act cannot provide the basis for a civil action, there is no federal question supporting the exercise of this Court’s jurisdiction over Count I of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

A state-law ejectment action does not present a federal question under § 1331.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. v. ARRINGTON · filed 2020-07-21

To the extent Arrington’s Notice of Removal can be construed as alleging that this Court may exercise federal question jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to § 1331, (ECF No. 2 at 7), the Third Circuit has made clear that an “ejectment action . . . is governed by state law, . . . does not present a federal question[,]” and therefore “belongs back in state court.” See Lott v. Duffy, 579 F. App’x 87, 89-90 (3d Cir. 2014). Accordingly, there is no basis for the Court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction in this action, and remand is appropriate.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when state law creates the cause of action and the right to relief does not necessarily depend on resolving a substantial question of federal law.

King v. Rushford · filed 2021-09-08

Failing to establish that federal law creates the cause of action or that Plaintiffs’ right to relief “necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law,” Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate that the case invokes federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law; a complaint presenting only state-law medical malpractice claims does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Luhr v. Planned Parenthood · filed 2021-09-08

Although plaintiff provides that this Court has jurisdiction over this matter due to its federal question jurisdiction, it is clear that there are no questions of federal law involved.

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

WILLIAMS v. NEW JERSEY TRANSIT RAIL OPERATION · filed 2021-09-09

The Second Amended Complaint does not allege a violation of the United States Constitution or federal law, which means the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint fails to plead a federal question.

Smith v. Bellin Health Hospital · filed 2021-09-10

After reviewing the complaint, the Court finds that it has no subject matter jurisdiction over this action based on either federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Section 1331 gives federal courts original jurisdiction over a complaint that expressly asserts a federal statutory claim without requiring a preemption inquiry.

Sullers, Sr. v. International Union of Elevator Constructors Local 2 · filed 2021-09-13

There is no need to implicate the doctrine of preemption in assessing removability where Sullers alleges a federal cause of action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint fails to state a claim under federal law.

Smith v. Tipsord · filed 2021-09-15

Defendants also seek dismissal for lack of federal question jurisdiction. As will be discussed below, as pled, the Amended Complaint does not state a claim under federal law. Defendants’ motion to dismiss on this ground will be granted.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the operative complaint alleges no federal causes of action.

Rosales v. Scottsdale Insurance Company, Inc. · filed 2021-09-16

Complete diversity has been destroyed, and there are no federal causes of action alleged.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a civil complaint seeking relief exclusively for violations of criminal statutes that provide no private right of action.

(PS) Van Den Heuvel v. Musso · filed 2021-09-17

A case “arises under” federal law either where federal law creates the cause of action or “where the vindication of a right under state law necessarily turn[s] on some construction of federal law.” ... The complaint expressly seeks relief exclusively for violations of the criminal code. A citizen does not have authority to bring criminal charges. ... Accordingly, the complaint fails to establish jurisdiction and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over a constitutional claim against an attorney when the complaint alleges no state action.

Montes v. George · filed 2021-09-17

The Complaint does not appear to assert claims that would give this Court federal question jurisdiction. ... Defendant is not alleged to hold any position from which state action could be implied.

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

Kim v. Bornman · filed 2021-09-17

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

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

Finnegan v. Columbia Doctors · filed 2021-09-17

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). Here, Plaintiff’s reference to a federal statute providing individuals the right to bring a malpractice suit against the United States is misplaced, as Plaintiff does not sue a federal entity or allege that a federal entity caused his injuries. Moreover, Plaintiff’s allegations do not suggest a violation of any federal law. Thus, the Court cannot exercise federal question jurisdiction over his claims.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint alleging only a private failure to repay money and identifying no federal claim.

Kim v. Noris-Mam · filed 2021-09-17

The Court dismisses this action for the same reason the Court dismissed the 21-CV-3710 case; that is, Plaintiff’s complaint does not provide a basis on which the Court can exercise subject matter jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s claims under either the federal question or diversity of citizenship statutes.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a claim when the plaintiff pleads a federal cause of action on the face of the complaint.

Lane v. Gray Transportation, Inc . · filed 2021-09-20

Because Plaintiff pleaded a federal claim on the face of his complaint, federal jurisdiction exists as to that claim.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the claims do not suggest a violation of federal law.

Andretta v. Hendrickson · filed 2021-09-20

Plaintiff’s claims do not suggest a violation of any federal law. The Court therefore cannot exercise federal question jurisdiction over the claims.

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

Alarcon v. C R Bard Incorporated · filed 2021-09-22

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

Section 1331 requires substantive federal allegations; unsupported citations to inapplicable federal authorities do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Jones v. Scarborough · filed 2021-09-22

Plaintiff simply cannot invoke federal question jurisdiction based on unsupported citations to inapplicable federal authorities.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a complaint that brings only state law claims and presents no federal question.

Evans v. Shipley Homestead Homeowners Asso., Inc. · filed 2021-09-23

Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to establish any other basis for federal jurisdiction, as she brings only state law claims and does not present a federal question.

Section 1331 requires allegations supporting federal question jurisdiction.

Tan v. Macy's Inc. · filed 2021-09-24

Here, Plaintiff fails to allege any facts in any of the five Complaints to support federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a pleading to allege a violation of federal law or the U.S. Constitution to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Calvillo v. Lea County Detention Center, et.al. · filed 2021-09-27

The amended pleading must allege a violation of federal law or the U.S. Constitution to establish a basis for federal jurisdiction.

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

ROCKEMORE v. CITY OF CAMDEN · filed 2021-09-28

If Plaintiff has intended to assert a claim for federal question jurisdiction, in order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, Plaintiff must plead a violation of the U.S. Constitution or the laws of the United States, and he has failed to do so, see U.S. Const, Art III, Section 2 (providing that federal courts can hear “all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, [and] the laws of the United States . . . .”); 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law in the complaint; an actual or anticipated defense or counterclaim cannot establish federal-question jurisdiction.

(UD)(PS) Quinn Crossing, LLC v. Leddy · filed 2021-09-28

Federal 5 | question jurisdiction cannot rest upon an actual or anticipated defense or counterclaim.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint identifies no violated federal statute or constitutional right and alleges only medical malpractice or undefined pharmaceutical law.

Gremmels v. Somkin · filed 2021-09-28

As a preliminary matter, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not adequately alleged the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. Although he has checked the box on his form complaint for federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, he does not identify any specific federal statute or constitutional right that he alleges has been violated.

Section 1331 requires a pleaded basis for federal-question jurisdiction; citing federal transportation statutes does not suffice when those provisions do not make the claims arise under federal law.

Gulf Winds International Inc v. Almanzar · filed 2021-09-29

Gulf Winds argues that subject matter jurisdiction exists under 28 USC § 1331 because its claims implicate a federal question under 49 USC §§ 13501 and 14501. Dkt 1 at ¶ 8. It also asserts a single federal claim under 49 USC § 13706. Id at ¶ 21. To the contrary, none of these provisions establish federal question jurisdiction here.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a product liability and negligence action that does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Parker v. Apple Inc. · filed 2021-09-29

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

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a claim that does not arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Parker v. Microsoft Corporation · filed 2021-09-29

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

Section 1331 supplies federal question jurisdiction over a declaratory claim that requires interpreting and applying a federal statute, regardless of whether the claim succeeds on the merits.

KINDRED HOSPITALS EAST, LLC v. LOCAL 464A UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION WELFARE SERVICE BENEFIT FUND · filed 2021-09-29

The Court agrees with Defendants that the fourth claim in Plaintiff’s Complaint presents a federal question under Section 1331. ... Resolving this claim would require the Court to interpret and apply the terms of a federal statute. Whether or not the underlying claim is meritorious is not a consideration at this stage.

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

Dearing, Karmin v. 15 News "WMTV" Madison · filed 2021-09-30

The court plainly does not have jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as Dearing has identified no federal claims in his complaint, nor can this court discern one from the facts alleged.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over claims grounded in state law.

Laios v. MTM Builder/Developer, Inc. · filed 2021-09-30

None of Plaintiffs’ claims “arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States[,]” 28 U.S.C. § 1331; rather, Plaintiffs’ claims are grounded in state law. See ECF No. 1 at 8–11. Thus, this Court lacks federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a sufficiently pleaded cause of action arising under federal law to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Founders Federal Credit Union v. Mitchell · filed 2021-09-30

First, for the aforementioned reasons, Defendant has not sufficiently plead any cause of action, let alone a cause of action arising via federal law.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when allegations of federal claims lack facts showing a violation of federal law or a substantial federal question.

Wiley v. Department of Energy · filed 2021-09-29

Notwithstanding Wiley’s assertion of supposed federal claims in her complaint,32 it is unclear from her vague, conclusory, unsupported, and often fanciful allegations how she understands the SCORE defendants to have violated specific federal laws or constitutional rights or that her right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when the plaintiff sues under a federal statute creating a right of action in federal court.

Cooper v. Uber Technologies Incorporated · filed 2021-10-01

The federal question jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, is applicable only when the plaintiff sues under a federal statute that creates a right of action in federal court.

Section 1331 requires allegations supporting a federal question; a fleeting reference to copyright and trade secret violations does not establish jurisdiction.

Isom v. Internal Affairs State of Texas · filed 2021-10-04

Likewise, her fleeting mention of copy right and trade secret violations does not suffice to establish federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction only when the complaint alleges a claim arising under federal law.

Smith v. Harris · filed 2021-10-06

Smith does not invoke the Court’s federal-question jurisdiction, see AC at 2, and her amended complaint does not allege facts indicative of any claim arising under federal law. The Court therefore cannot exercise federal question jurisdiction over this matter.

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

Isom v. Former US President Barack Obama · filed 2021-10-06

Isom fails to plead facts supporting federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts federal-question jurisdiction when plaintiffs allege claims under federal law or the United States Constitution.

James Saunders and Teneshia Bonds, Plaintiffs v. Shaw’s Supermarkets, Inc., Defendant · filed 2021-10-07

This court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiffs allege claims under both federal law and the United States Constitution.

Section 1331 gives district courts subject matter jurisdiction over federal employment discrimination claims.

Thomas v. Grundfos · filed 2021-10-07

The district court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Thomas brought federal employment discrimination claims against the defendants.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law or the United States Constitution.

Saunders v. Shaws Supermarket Company · filed 2021-10-07

This court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiffs allege claims under both federal law and the United States Constitution.

Section 1331 does not give federal-question jurisdiction over a state unlawful detainer action based solely on a federal defense.

Saba v. Sinutko · filed 2021-10-08

Thus, to the extent Defendant’s defenses to the unlawful detainer action are based on alleged violations of federal law, those defenses do not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction only when the complaint pleads an action arising under federal law.

Brown v. Wright Patterson Air Force Base Sensors Directorte Afre/Ry · filed 2021-10-08

Upon examination, the Complaint does not plead any action arising under federal law, so § 1331 is unavailable.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state unlawful detainer action when the complaint asserts no claim arising under federal law.

Yow v. Jackson · filed 2021-10-12

The state-court complaint does not include any claim “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

Cardish, Jr. v. U.S. Immigration · filed 2021-10-12

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 requires a complaint to allege facts establishing federal-question jurisdiction.

Hawari v. Hawari · filed 2021-10-12

On the face of the complaint, there are no facts to establish whether the Court has federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over the main action when the plaintiff’s complaint asserts no federal-law claims.

Tarpon Bay Partners, LLC v. Visium Technologies, Inc. · filed 2021-10-13

In the case at bar, Plaintiff Tarpon has not included federal law claims in its Complaint and/or Amended Complaint. Therefore, there is no arguable basis upon which the Court may assert “federal question” subject matter jurisdiction over the main action (as opposed to the Counterclaim) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a removed unlawful-detainer action when the complaint sounds only in state law and the removing party fails to identify a federal question on its face.

(UD)(PS)1430 Q St Investors LLC v. War · filed 2021-10-14

The exact allegations are unclear from the face of the petition here, but it appears the complaint attempts to set forth an unlawful detainer claim, which sounds clearly and exclusively in state law. ... Defendant thus does not carry his burden and therefore the court must find it lacks federal-question jurisdiction.

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

CANTAVE v. HOLIDAY CVS, L.L.C. · filed 2021-10-14

Here, the Second Amended Complaint asserts two claims for premises liability against Defendant Holiday CVS, L.L.C. and Defendant Butler, which are claims that fall squarely under state law. ... Therefore, because the Court lacks both federal question and diversity jurisdiction, this action must be remanded to the state court.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over a federal trade secret misappropriation claim; failure to prove misappropriation is a merits issue, not a jurisdictional defect.

Mallet and Company Inc v. Lacayo · filed 2021-10-15

The District Court had original jurisdiction over Mallet’s federal trade secret misappropriation claim pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1836(c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... The Defendants have contended that the District Court lacked jurisdiction because Mallet failed to prove that the Defendants misappropriated a protectable trade secret. But that is a merits argument, not a jurisdictional one, and we reject it.

Section 1331 requires a well-pleaded complaint to raise an issue of federal law for federal-question jurisdiction.

Contreras v. Gomez · filed 2021-10-18

First, plaintiff’s Complaint does not give rise to federal question jurisdiction. “A cause of action arises under federal law only when the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint raises an issue of federal law.” N.Y. v. Shinnecock Indian Nation, 686 F.3d 133, 138 (2d Cir. 2012) (quotation marks and citation omitted). The Complaint does not cite to any provision of federal law, nor assert any violation of federal Constitutional rights. Accordingly, the Court does not have jurisdiction over this matter based on a federal question.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an abuse-of-process claim when the plaintiffs identify no federal statutory authority for it.

HATCHIGIAN v. CARRIER CORPORATION · filed 2021-10-21

The Plaintiffs also assert that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 based on their abuse of process claim. However, Plaintiffs make no mention of any federal statutory authority that would create federal question jurisdiction and thus that argument fails.

Section 1331 requires a well-pleaded federal claim; fleeting references to federal law do not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Rotter v. Bauer · filed 2021-10-22

Fleeting references or citations to federal law are not enough.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint identifies no federal statute, treaty, or constitutional provision at issue.

Fishback v. Buchanon · filed 2021-10-22

Plaintiff fails to cite to any federal statute, federal treaty, and/or provision of the United States Constitution which would provide this Court with federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts subject matter jurisdiction over a complaint asserting claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Centeno v. City of Carlsbad · filed 2021-10-26

First, the amended complaint contains claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and 42 U.S.C. section 1983. (ECF 1-2). The Court therefore has subject matter jurisdiction over this action.

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

MORSE v. HELLER · filed 2021-10-26

On the form complaint provided by the Court for pro se plaintiffs, Plaintiff has checked the box for federal question jurisdiction, but in order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, Plaintiff must plead a violation of the U.S. Constitution or the laws of the United States.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint alleges no facts supporting a cause of action arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

TORO v. FEDERAL DEPT. AGRICULTURE PREGNANCY TEST · filed 2021-10-29

The third amended complaint also fails to state any facts that would permit the Court to conclude that there is a cause of action against NBIMC that arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 requires a complaint to identify a federal statute or constitutional right allegedly violated to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

SADDLER v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY UNEMPLOYMENT DIVISION · filed 2021-10-29

Mr. Saddler also failed to identify a federal statute or Constitutional right allegedly violated as a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over a state-law negligence claim tied to HIPPA when HIPPA creates no private right of action.

Taylor v. Hohertz · filed 2021-11-01

Jurisdiction may still exist if Taylor has raised a federal question – that is, if the case arises “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Taylor raises a state law negligence claim but attempts to do so in relation to a potential HIPPA claim. However, HIPPA does not create a private right of action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over state-law claims when the complaint does not show that the claims fall within the scope of the federal statute invoked as a basis for jurisdiction.

Burton v. Silverado Escondido, LLC · filed 2021-11-02

It is not evident from the face of the Complaint that Plaintiff’s claims fall within the scope of the PREP Act. ... The Court concludes that Silverado has failed to meet its burden to establish that removal based on federal question jurisdiction was proper.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint identifies no violated federal law or constitutional provision and its allegations suggest none.

Carter v. Beulah Braids · filed 2021-11-03

Here, Plaintiff specifies no constitutional provision or federal law violated by any of the defendants, nor is any suggested by the complaint.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the complaint identifies no constitutional provision or federal law violated and suggests none.

Carter v. Apostolic Ambassadors World Outreach · filed 2021-11-03

Here, Plaintiff specifies no constitutional provision or federal law violated by any of the defendants, nor is any suggested by the complaint.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over claims that sound in negligence and present no federal question.

Martinez v. Baros · filed 2021-11-03

Plaintiff’s claims sound in negligence and do not present a federal question.

Section 1331 requires a claim arising under federal law; a negligence claim alleging no federal constitutional or statutory violation does not establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Murgaw v. McGuire · filed 2021-11-08

Federal question jurisdiction requires that a plaintiff allege a claim “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Here, Murgaw alleges he fell because his friend, a private citizen, did not properly install roof jacks on the roof. Thus, he is alleging negligence, which is a state-law claim. The facts do not suggest that any federal constitutional or statutory violation has occurred.

Section 1331 requires more than an unexplained list of federal statutes to establish federal-question jurisdiction.

Bay Management Group, LLC. v. Forney Tracey Nicole Estate · filed 2021-11-08

The unexplained litany of citations to federal statutes provided here is insufficient to raise a federal question to confer jurisdiction.

Section 1331 requires a basis for federal-question jurisdiction arising under federal law; a complaint that fails to state a federal or constitutional claim does not provide one.

McCree v. KMG Prestiege Company · filed 2021-11-08

Plaintiff therefore fails to state a basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction when a claim arises under federal law or necessarily implicates a substantial federal issue.

Franklin v. Department of Health & Human Services · filed 2021-11-08

The court has considered the substance of Plaintiff’s claims and finds Plaintiff has not alleged any claim arising under federal law or implicating any substantial federal issue.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint does not properly plead a federal cause of action.

(PC) Payne v. Placer County · filed 2021-11-09

It does not include a properly-pled federal cause of action that would permit federal question jurisdiction.